Professional Documents
Culture Documents
............... - 2015
............... - 2015
( )106
............... - 2015
:
/
. 2478 . .
:
journalofscience2013@gmail.Com
............... - 2015
.
.
.
............... - 2015
.
.
.
.
............... - 2015
( )
( )
.
.
.
.
.
.
............... - 2015
:
* .
*
( )CD
( 2010 )2007 PDF
(.)CD
* .
* (
) .
.
* Times New Roman 10 B10
2B1 10 B10 B
12 .1.0 .
* 5 5.7 4.
* 10
5 .
*
.
*
.
10 12 .
* ()
.
............... - 2015
[ ]1-5[ ]12[ ]1
. .
* ( )Key Words
.
*
. .
*
.
............... - 2015
10
) (
.
.
.
.
.
11
............... - 2015
12
............... - 2015
:
( )1 .
( )2 .
()3
.
) (4
.
) (5 .
)(6
.
............... - 2015
13
..
15
Sclerotinia sclrotiorum
2
Garlic
Escherichia coli
19
24
27
, -
1 2 3
33
4
6
38
14
............... - 2015
:
( , ) irregular -:
1 .
2 .
3 .
()1
: , , .
:1 ( )Boundary value problem
, .
:2 ]Successive ( : [2
,)Over Relaxation Algorithm, S.O.R
-:
i 1
n
)( k 1
j
a ij x
) (k
j
a ij x
j i 1
j 1
bi
a ii
.0
)( k 1
(1 ) x i
) (k
xi
( ) Irregular Regions
5 ,
, , h
i
()2
( h )1 u , [1] u
-:
0
u3 u0
u
3h
x 03
u 0 u1
u
1h
x 1 0
x x
u
2
) ( u 3 u 0 ) /( 3 h ) ( u 0 u 1 ) /( 1 h
( 1 3 ) h
u
2
()3
____________________________________________
. , - -
fzaggout@yahoo.com
15
16
2 u1 u 0
u3 u0
( 1 3 )
3
3
1 1
) (1
u
2
( )a : 2
1 u 2 0
:
).. (2
2 u2 u0
u4 u0
2
) h 2 ( 2 4
4 ( 2 4 )
1 2
)O (h
u3
u1
u2
2
2
h 1 1 3 2 2 4 3 1 3
1
1
) 4
2 4
1 3
u4
2
2 . 1691 u 12 0
0.0712809
0.05750609
0.02036687
0.15376817
0.14508119
0.10868559
0.03229917
0.20795511
0.21793115
0.22753645
0.14778186
0.10753982
0.000
0.19570771
0.29240588
0.43310333
0.8044055
L x 0 . 4 0 . 4899 0 . 4 0 . 0899
u3
u 17 , u 12 , u 3
0 . 5826 h 0 . 05826
0 . 5826 h u 12
0 . 8990 h u 17
0 .1
()1
17
1
4 . 2247
1 . 0532
. (.)1
0 .1
5 . 4328
1 . 2637
( , )a,b,c,d
( )3 ( x 0 . 4899 : ) ,
L u :
L 0 . 08990
1 . 1715 u 17 0
( )2 1 17 .
17 .
u , u , u , u
, h 0 . 1
0 .1
u2
()d : 17
: , a 0 . 5
0 ( ) ,
, C 50
.
1 . 2637
( )c :12
,
.
12
2 . 1691
5 . 4328
1 . 0532
0 .1
( )b : 3
)..(3
1 u 3 0
u 0
1 . 1715
4 . 2247
42.9555343297388420
43.716705081752500
46.041657309471680
34.40417502725988
35.241637620504860
37.888104095850320
42.703321376372040
24.223788651739990
25.000000064844520
27.575258764308060
32.797910626966140
42.202086313009470
12.733169461808660
13.054759321149760
14.758361603917970
18.716704349441760
28.522330190631340
43.02659138589266
43.774211173133500
46.062024171533060
34.557943197303630
35.38671881673820
37.996789686384260
42.735620542011270
24.431743769844630
25.217931210133090
27.802795215254110
32.945692481660770
42.094546491973720
12.733169461808660
13.250467038695010
15.050767482838280
19.149807677403990
28.602770745116920
0.4220
0.3524
2
0.3975
0.3128
4
2
0.3524
4
0.1872
0.1475
2
4
0.1476
0.1024
0.07797
0.4
0.4123
0.4472
0.3
0.3162
0.3606
0.4243
0.2
0.2236
0.2828
0.3606
0.4472
0.1
0.1414
0.2236
0.3162
0.4123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
()
:
).(4
1 )
2 n 1
( 2 n
sin
1
r
( 2 n 1) a
4c
n 1
u ( r , )
: a : c ,
( ,) c 50 , r
0
( )3 ( ) Operators :
,
.
( )1
4 .
- - 2015
17
( ) 1
( 0.097 )14 ( 2.47
,)12 2
.
2
) u ( r ,
42.9555343297388420
43.716705081752500
46.041657309471680
34.40417502725988
35.241637620504860
37.888104095850320
42.703321376372040
24.223788651739990
25.000000064844520
27.575258764308060
32.797910626966140
42.202086313009470
12.733169461808660
13.054759321149760
14.758361603917970
18.716704349441760
28.522330190631340
0.37941114
0.58971346
0.92297265
0.35442967
0.42828793
0.5403571
0.39285349
0.22743879
0.27108524
0.42677302
0.9037861
2.47120865
0.25534501
0.09728535
0.13520497
0.33003752
1.49294407
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
42.575932151311560
43.126991626290380
45.118684655247330
34.049745352665500
34.813349698602620
37.347746994698910
42.310467880405780
23.996349862145180
24.728914820755700
27.148485744539910
31.894124526924230
39.730877661903010
12.477824454403800
12.957473977735080
14.623156635780800
18.386666820848210
27.029386120687800
()4
:
u
2
).. (5
( )5
u 0
u A ,u R ,u L u B
1 u
r r
u
2
r
2
u
2
()5
, ,
].[1
( )5 :
1 u R u L
2r
r0
2u O u B
2
2u O u L
2
1
2
u
2
r0
()6
:
2
uB
r
u A
ro
(.......................)6
r
u R
ro
r
u L 1
2 ro
u
O
r
1
2 ro
PROGRAM
1
2
u
2
r
2 2
ro
.
0
0
0.5 0 . 50
r 0 . 1 . / 8
( )6 1 . 16 ( )6
(
( )4 :
REAL *8 R, P, B, T, F, S, M
) 'OPEN ( 6, FILE= ' ', STATUS = 'OLD
P=900000
)B=(4.0D0)*ATAN(1.0D0
DO 10 I=1 , 4
(R=1.0D0*I/(1.0D0
DO 20 J= 1,4
(=B*J/(8.0D0
DO 30 N=1 , P
T=(2*N-1)*
)F=SIN(T
18
)S=S+(2*R)**(2*N-1)*F/(2*N-1
CONTINUE
M=200*S/B
WRITE (6,*) R , , M
S=0.0
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
STOP
END
()5
30
20
10
4 (,)3
( )4 .
()3
5.033126725742747
9.1202244651991921
11.124886589860240
11.696778253893460
12.566591637800240
18.865391938131260
19.811460331237670
22.968929067052400
24.223788318168690
29.430375851320780
33.081365937535130
33.335110252892340
34.404173924526140
40.193906215600990
42.395964328151530
42.955342504544530
3.926990816987241E-001
7.853981633974483E-001
3.926990816987241E-001
1.178097245096172
1.570796326794897
7.853981633974483E-001
3.926990816987241E-001
1.178097245096172
1.570796326794897
7.853981633974483E-001
3.926990816987241E-001
1.178097245096172
1.570796326794897
7.853981633974483E-001
1.178097245096172
1.570796326794897
91.901097898482420
77.134211246616590
67.604391593929630
64.786654907089200
53.696663726772300
40.932453392536740
36.595602323530320
37.845564307654880
r
1.000000000000000E-001
1.000000000000000E-001
2.000000000000000E-001
1.000000000000000E-001
1.000000000000000E-001
2.000000000000000E-001
3.000000000000000E-001
2.000000000000000E-001
2.000000000000000E-001
3.000000000000000E-001
4.000000000000000E-001
3.000000000000000E-001
3.000000000000000E-001
4.000000000000000E-001
4.000000000000000E-001
4.000000000000000E-001
()4
0.1247697
0.18374
0.4645
1.2422
0.2186
0.2721
0.4013
0.2288
0.2008
0.1985
0.1378
0.06149
0.0658
0.0467
0.00187
0.04006
42.955342504544530
42.395964328151530
40.193906215600990
34.404173924526140
33.335110252892340
33.081365937535130
29.430375851320780
24.223788318168690
22.968929067052400
19.811460331237670
18.865391938131260
12.566591637800240
11.696778253893460
11.124886589860240
9.1202244651991921
5.033126725742747
42.830572809409870
42.212221241904330
39.72940758185281
31.839152612801430
34.185581647619560
33.06298453699461
29.029089654434530
19.582623007633270
24.023036497961570
22.770383374521060
18.727513838706970
11.186376009025480
12.500764267440800
11.650047855865680
9.122111275172037
5.073185121943077
2
3 8
4
8
2
3 8
4
8
2
3 8
4
8
2
3 8
4
8
r
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
P10
P 11
P12
P13
P14
P15
P16
( 0.0018
)15 ( 1.2422 .)4
.. ,
.
( )
()5
()7
Garlic
Escherichia coli
, , ,
:
,
, E. coli
%80
,
E. coli
. Ceftriaxone
E. coli
Eosin mehtylene blue Agar Macconkey
AgarIndol test
-:
10
25
,
24 60
Mueller Hinton Agar E. coli
24
.
-:
20 200
CH3OH %75
24
.E . coli
:
. %75
: Mueller Hinton Agar
40C
15-10 .
(.)12mg\ml 8mg\ml 4mg\ml
: 24
60
Mueller Hinton agar
24-18
.
24
10 1
25
( )1 E. coli
:
] [5 5-4
10
( .)Turbidity Macfarland Standerd
Mueller Hinton Agar
24-18
AMC
) %65( 37
) %35( 20
TE
) %40( 23
) %7(4
) %53( 30
) %75( 43
) %12( 7
) %12( 7
CRO
)% 82( 47
)%2( 1
) %16( 9
CXM
) %77( 44
) %4( 2
) %19( 11
57 E. coli
( )
8 ( ) %14
49 ( ) % 84 ()1
30
20
20
15
15
E.coli ,
E .coli
( )4mg/ml %68
( )8mg/ml %81 E.coli
( )12mg/ml
%88 (. )2
( )2 E. coli
10
1
2 3
0
60 - 75 46 - 59 31 - 45 16 - 30 0 - 15
8mg/ml
12mg/ml
E .coli
S
)%68( 39
)%81( 46
)%88( 50
) %14( 8
)%11( 6
)%7( 4
)%18( 10
)%9( 5
)%5(3
(: )1 ( )
( =.)57
E. coli
. ,
E .coli
Eosin methylene blue agar
E .coli Enterobacter
E .coli
.
E. coli
, %82 Ceftriaxone
Cefuroxime %77
)F( Furadentin
, %75 Amoxycillin Clavinic acid
E.coli %65
Tetracycline ,%40 (.)1
mg/ml
4
( ) 3 E .coli
E.coli
4mg/ml
8mg/ml
12mg/ml
) %79( 45
)%9( 5
)%18( 10
)%14( 8
)%91( 52
)%82( 47
) %7( 4
E .coli
( )12mg/ml , %79 ( )4mg/ml
( )8mg/ml ,E .coli
E.coli .
( 4mg/ml )8mg/ml
( )12mg/ml ,% 33E. coli
(. )4
- - 2015
26
( ) 4 E .coli
E .coli
4mg/ml
8mg/ml
12 mg/ml
I
S
R
0
0
)%100( 57
0
)%9( 5
)%91( 52
)%33(19
)%14( 8
)%53(30
E.coli
E .coli .
E.coli
( )30 _16
].[10
E.coli ] [1
26mm
][4
E.coli
,
, E.coli
%88 12mg/ml
Ceftriaxone
E.coli %82
Cefotaxime
%77
E. coli 12mg/ml %79
] [2
Cefotaxime
, E.coli
Amoxycillin clavulanic acid
%65
4mg/ml %68 Tetracycline
%40
%33 ,12mg/ml
] [3 E.coli
Tetracycline
. E.coli
] , [9
E.coli
.200mg/ml
Allium sativum
Allicine
Scordinin A
A Phytonicidine 57 E.
coli
E .coli
,
E. coli )(CRO
Ceftriaxone )CXM(Cefotaxime
), Amoxycilin and calvonic Acid (AMC
E. coli
AMC , CXM
,
, )TE(Tetracyclinr
E.coli
-1 ( )2011 ,
37 . 2
-2 ( )2011
( )3 ( )2 (. )161-151
-3 ( )2008
.
4- Abubakar,E.M. (2009): Efficacy of crude extracts of garlic
(Allium sativum linn) against nosocomial Eschrichia coli
.Journal of medicinal plants Research vol. 3(4) PP 179-185.
5- Bauer, A.w.;Kirby,W.M. N.; Sherries, J.C.; and
Turck,M. (1966): Antibiotic susceptiobility testing by
standredizd single disk method American.Journal Of clinical
pathology., 45:493-496.
6- Block, E. (1985): The chemistry of garlic and onion. Sci.
Am, 254:114-119.
7- Dausch, J. C. and Diw-Mixon(1990): Allium sativumprew.
Meel., 19:346-361.
8- De Mouy, D.; Armeng, M.; Lefevre, M. and Discamps,
G.(1989) :Recovery rates of urinary tract micro- organism in
office practice susceptibility to seven anti- microbial drugs in
cluding the amoxicillin- clavulanic acid combination pathol
.Bial.,37(5):402-405.
9-Garba,I.; Umar,A,I.; Abdulrahman, A.B.; Giyyani, M.
B.; Aliyu, M. S.;Zango, V.V and Muhammad, A. (2013):
pHytochemical AND ANTIBACTERIAL PROPERTIES of
GARLIC EXTRACTS. University Zaria, Nigeria. Bayero.
Journal of pure and Applied sciences., 6 (2) 45-48 (2013).
10-Lucas, M.J. &Cunningam F.G. (1993): Urinary infections
in pregnancy .Clin .Obstet Gynecol.36:855.
11-Rees, L.P.; Minney, N.T.; plammer,J.H. and
skyrme,D.A.(1993):Aguantitative assessment of the
antimicrobial activity of garlic Biotechnol., 9:303-307 .
12-Reuter,H.p.; kock and Lawson D.L.(1996):Therapeutic
effects and applications in: garlic : The science and theThe
rapeutic Applications of Allium sativum L. and related
species. 2nd Ed. Pp.,135-212.
13-Stenquist, K.;Sanberg, G.& Lidinjanson F.(1987):
Virulence factors of E.coli in urinary isolates from pregnant
women J.infect .Dis .156:870-877.
Sclerotinia sclrotiorum
, , ,
Sclerotia
2 10
] [1
] [2
.
: S. sclerotiorum
.
.
.
S. sclerotiorum
24
.
S. sclerotiorum
.
% 7.5 . :
: Sclerotinia
.
sclrotiorum
,S. sclerotiorum : , , .
, ,
Fruits vegetable used in
:this study
] [1
20 .%100 S.
sclerotiorum, S. minor, S.trifolium, S. asari, S. nivalis
] [ 18 S. sclerotiorum
].[18 S. sclerotiorum
$200
1999 $100 ].[ 7
Boland and Hall [8] 1994 S. sclerotiorum
75 294 ( 278 )26% 4045
( )6.9% 408
S. sclerotiorum
.
- / /
- / /
- / /
- / /
19
()Cucurbita pepo ( Cucumis
)astivus ( )Solanumme longena ( )Daucus carota
( )Brassica oleracea ( )Pisum sativum
.
Medicinal plants used in the study:
()1
( )1
S. sclrotiorum
Origanum
spp.
Lamiaceae
Mentha spp.
Lamiaceae
20
:
:Pathogenicity experiments
:Diameter of infected zone
S. sclerotiorum
S. sclerotiorum :
( )Cucurbita pepo( )Daucus carota
( (Brassica oleracea
()Solanum melongena
( )Pisum sativum ( )Cucums sativus
) )cork porer 10
5 7
and
] [9,4
( )
20 1 .
:
:
( %3 )Sodium Hypochlorite
25
( 7 10 )
. (
)Hypocotyl El-Samre at al.
] [11 ] [12 S. sclerotiorum
10 PD 20
5 ( 2010)
) (Cotyledons 20
22 10 .
.
.S. sclerotiorum
.The effect inhibitory of plant extracts on S. sclerotiorum
] [16
10
500 200
Magnetic Stirrer 15
Centerfuge 15
, ( )100
.
Cellulose acetate filter 0.2
.m
S.sclerotoirum (5.02.5
) %7.5 PDA ,
8
20 4
( ) .
. :
A : B
.
Results
Diameter of infected
( )1 S. sclerotiorum
(.)1
( )2
200
126157179
64 94
.
( ) 1 ( )2
S. sclerotiorum
3
2 1
%900
%580
%280
%341
%164
.%133
( )2
S. sclerotiorum
(
) (.)2
33
2
6.035
................... - 2015-
21
4.414
6.920
.
%241
%164
10.52.6 8.93.1
%133 ( )3
7.53.1 6.32.5
5.82.5
.
)
( 3
4.72.2.
24
) .)A-3 48
.
( .)B-3 72
(.) C-3
96
(.) D-3
( )1 S.sclerotiorum 7
( )2 S.sclerotiorum 7
( )2
S.sclerotiorum 7
Histopatholgical Study
S. sclerotiorum
Hypocotyl
Microtome
96 72 4824
.
). (3
()
( )2 S. sclerotiorum
( )2 ,
L.S.D.
33
23
9
2
6
30
17.166
2.19
/
()g
6.47
1.46
0.41
0.13
0.29
6.92
2.596
0.017
/
()mm
()mm
8.93.1
5.56
7.53.0
5.05
5.82.5
3.83
4.72.2
3.52
6.32.5
4.73
10.52.6
9.65
5.390
1.02
S.sclerotiorum
( )% 7.5 % 5 % 2.5% 0.0
S. sclerotiorum Sclerotia
% 7.5
%56.92 %74.07
( )% 0.0 ( )3 ( )4 (.)5
% 5.0
%39.66 %62.22
. %2.5
% 48.88 ,
.
( )5( )4 ( )3
22
.
( ) 3
S. sclerotoirum
LSD
0.0
2.5
5.0
7.5
0.0
2.5
5.0
7.5
LSD
()%
66.66
61.31
100
100
66.66
45.75
75.17
100
4.04
()%
43.33
54.96
73.63
79.99
43.33
36.43
49.97
71.91
4.07
()%
16
51.33
69.37
76.12
16
22.97
45.94
29.35
3.87
()%
0
48.88
62.22
74.07
0
0
38.51
56.96
4.41
(%5.0 % 2.5
) % 7.5 S.
.sclerotiorum
S. sclerotiorum
S. sclerotiorum 7.5
% % 5.0 7.5
% % 2.5 5.0
% % 2.5
S. sclerotiorum
] [6;19
] [13
F. oxysporum
Menthol Menthon
] [15; 14
( )Limonene
( )Phellendrene ( )Pinene
( )Terpinol
( )Geraniol ( )Eugernol ( [5] )Linalnol
.
: :
( )4 S.
.sclerotoirum
.1997
-1
, - -
-.
( .)1985
-2
.
995
( .)1981
-3
.395
-4 ( .)2000
- -. 72
: :
( ) 5 S.
sclerotoirum
2015- - ...................
23
:
,
.
: - - -
- - - -
.
;)() = (
1807 ,
.
.
_
.
+
)
( () = +
=1
, ,
.
)( -:
x
2x
x
2x
+a 2 cos
++b1 sin b2 sin
L
L
L
L
A+a 1 cos
). . . (1
+
)
( +
- )(
) (, 1 ), (1 , 2 ), , ( ,
, , ()1
)(
)( .
- )(
-2 [1],[2],[3] :
)( ] [ ,
)( )( ] .[ ,
27
28
([1],[2],[3] -: )1
2 -3 [3] -:
)( )( () = 2 0
)( + ) (2
() = 0 +
=1
2
() = 0
)(
= 1 () , = 1 () , ([1],[2] -: )2
2
)= 0,1,2, (3
( )2 Fourier Series .1 ) (, , = 1,2,
= 0
, ( )3 .
= )(
-:1
) ( ,
: )(
:
= )(
+ [ () + ()] ,
2
0
=1
= )(
)( +
2
2
)( )(
0
=1
.2 f ) ( , = 0 = 0
n=1,2,..
2
)( )(
0
)( = () () =
-:
=
| )( [
+ () ] = 0,
)( = )(
=1
1
1
= )( =
-:
-1
-1
2
bn= xcos(nx) cosnxdx = [cos(n)+cos(n)-0 ]= (-1)n+1
n
-
n
n
= )(
(1)2
)(
- :
.
-:2 () = ) (,
: () =
= )() = (
(=
)
2
2
)(= =
sin nx dx a n = a 0 = 0
ex -e-x
2
, bn = 0 sin hx sin(nx) dx = 0
1
] )( = [ () =
0
0
= () = 2
=1
1
1
1
] = 2 [ 2 + 3 4 +
+1
(1)+1
2
)(
)(1
2
3
4
= ] [
=
. 2
(2 + 1
+1
)( ) (, .2
:
28
29
.................... - 2012
.
] [, + 2
] [ , + :
)( = )(
=1
0
])( + [ () +
2
)(2
(1)+1
=
[ 2
])( .
+1
=1
=1
+2
1
0 = (),
)( ) (, .2
-4 [3] :Expansions Half_Range
0
) (,
) (,
) (0, .
: 3
0 ; 0 < < 2
{ = )(
< < 1 ; 2
1 +2
() () ,
;n
-2(-1)k-1
;n=2k-1 , k=1,2,
(2k-1)
+2
n=1,2,
] [ , +
:
+
1
(),
1 +
() (),
+
: 4 :
0
{ = an
< < 2 ;0
2
= )(
< < ;1
2
{1 ; < < 2
= 0
:
1
7
1
5
1
=
)( )(
][0,2
= 0
1 2 3 5
[
+
< ],0
2 1
3
5
<
1
= () ().
][3, 3
:
= 0 , = 1,2, . .,
2
= () , = 1,2, . .
0
2
2
2
=1 +
= )(
= )(
)( :
0
= )(
])( + [ () +
2
-5 ] [, +
] [3] :[ , +
=1
30
+2
1
1
1
= ) () = [ 2 + (1
= 0
)( = )(
0
2
2
( [ +
( ) +
])
2
+2
1
)( )(
=1
2
2
= )(0 =
(),
1
1
n
= ]= [ 2 cos(nx)dx+ cos(nx)dx - cos(nx)dx
sin
n
2
( )( =
)
c+2
1
1
bn= f(x) sin(nx) dx = [ 2 sin (nx) dx + sin(nx) dx - sin(nx) dx
3
)2(1
( ) +
= )(
:
2
=
)(
2
) (4 2 + 2 2
:
4
])([1
) + 2 2
(42 2
)(
)sin h(km
1
2nx
=)f(x
( +2mk sin h(km) n=1 2 2 2 2 cos
) +
m
- 6 ) [3]: (, +
4n +m k
2
(
])
(42 2 + 2 2
mk
[ ])(4[1
(-: )3
)(
-7 [1],[3] :convergence of Fourier series
0
2
2
= )(
( [ +
( ) +
])
2
=1
)(
)( ] [-L,L
) 0 (,:
0 )(
)( . 0
0 )(
)( :
2
() ,
=1
= 0
)( () + +
= ) (0
2
2
2
( )( =
) , = 1,2, ,
2
2
( )(
) , = 1,2,
= ; =
:
)( () + +
= )() = (
2
.
)( () = :5
) (0,
)( )(
30
)(
31
.................... - 2012
:
2
( +
( ) +
)
2
= )(
1
nx
1
nx
-1
n
(a n = f(x)cos
()dx= f(x)cos
=)dx
(sin
),
L
L
2
2
n
2
-2
=1
-L
1
nx
1
nx
1
)( = ) ( = n
(bn = f(x)sin
()dx= f(x)sin
=)dx
][ cos ( ) -2 cos(n) +1
:
L
L
2
2
n
2
-2
0
)(
)(
( [ +
( ) +
])
2
)( :
= )(
=1
( )
a0
= +
])n=1 [a n cos(n)-bn sin(n
) +
=1
)
+
)=1 (1
0
2
-L
( ) (
() =
=1
( 2 () + 1
= :
: )( )(2,2
0
)(
)(
( [ +
( ) +
])
2
)( = 1; = 0 :
= )(
() = 1 () = 0
=1
0+
a0
= +
])n=1 [a n cos(n)+bn sin(n
2
+
)=1 (1
1+ () = 2 1 () = 1
0
2
)( " "
:
; = =
:
+
)=1 (1
0
2
= )() = (
: )( :
: )( ][2,2
0; 2 < 0
() = { 1; 0 1
2; 1 < 2
: = 1; = 0
= 0 :
: )( ,2L=4 .L=2
+ () = 1; () = 0
0
)( :
:
= )(
( +
( ) +
)
2
11
= 0,
=1
( +
( ) +
)
2
2
2
2
1
1
3
= )( = )(
2
2
= +
)( (0 + ) +
0
(0) = +
0
=1
00
=0
= +
0
)( (0 + )
0
(0) = +
0
) (0 ) (0 )(
; = 0 = 0
:
= 0
32
+ () + () 1 + 0 1
0
(0) = 0
=
=
2
2
2
; = 1:
() = 2; () = 1
1+
22
= +
11
= +
(1) = +
0
= 0,
)( (1 + )
1
(1) = +
=0
) (1 ) (1 )(
; = 1
= 1 :
0
+ () + () 2 + 1 3
1
(1) = 1
=
=
2
2
2
=
1; = 0
3 1
, .
2 2
:
= 2; = 2
() = 0; () = 2
2+
:
0-0
=0,
x
= lim+
2-2
=0
-x
x0
= lim+
x0
x2
x
)f(2-x)- lim- f(x
x2
-x
= 0
2
2
= 1 1
. = 2; = 2
) (1 ) (1 )(
; = 2
= 2; = 2 :
+ () + () 0 + 2
2
(2) = (2) = 2
=
=1
2
2
32
, -
5
,1 ,2 3, ,4
: :
( ,)Cr ( ,)Mn ( ,)Fe ( ,)Co ( ,)Ni
( ,)Cu ( ,)Zn ( )Cd ( )Pb
.
)Emission
atomic
plasma
.
(.)4
.
(.) 5
Microwave
.)spectrometer
. ; ,,
,
,
, , .
.
() .
( )
.
: , , ,
.
,
.
.
:
- , ( ) ( )1
.
.
4-1 imsa242171@gmail.com
5 s_elw1970@yahoo.com
(.)2(,)1
( )1
,
(.)3
:
( )
. ( .)1
( )A, B, C,A (,)Cr
( ,)Mn ( ,)Fe ( ,)Co ( ,)Ni
( ,)Cu ( ,)Zn ( )Cd ()Pb
( )Muscles ( )Gills ( )Liver
33
( )2( )3( )4
.
( :)1
Mugilchelo
Periforms
Mugiliod
Mugilidae
:
. 100
,
. ()2
( :)2
1.0
1.4
1.2
0.8
1.2
1.9
1.2
1.8
2.2
0.8
0.8
1.5
( )2 ( ) Muscles
( )6
250 3
(Glass
) Watch )(HotPlate
. 3
.
250 .
( Microwave Plasma,
)Atomic Emission Spectrometer, Agrilent 4100
:
( ,)Cr ( ,)Mn
( ,)Fe ( ,)Co ( ,)Ni ( ,)Cu
( ,)Zn ( )Cd ()Pb (
) .
( )W.H.O, 1985 IAEA -
) 407 (2OO3 (.)3
( )4 ( )5
( .g/g ) ( )4 ( )5
( )5 ( )6 .
0.5
100.0
-
0.1
0.6-0.5
-
3.0
75-10
-
IAE
A407
(2OO
)3
2.0
WH
O
(1985
)
1-0.5
( )4 ( ) Liver
C
r
Mn
Fe
C
o
Ni
C
u
Z
n
C
d
P
b
( )3 ( ) Gills
()3 g/g
2.0
34
- - 2015
35
( )4
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
Fe
Ni
Zn
Cd
48.23 0.53 14.33 0.55
( )Mean STD
g/g
Cr
1.63 1.14
0.33 0. 41
1.58 0.31
Mn
5.01 0.36
1.97 0.36
3.4 0.84
Co
0.94 0.64
0.56 0.17
0.14 0.16
Cu
3.59 0.56
8.66 6.00
2.88 0.45
Pb
17.08 8.29
6.19 1.65
17.57 3.40
( )6
( )5 ( )6
( )
(.) 8
20
10
Cr
Mn
Co
Cu
Pb
1.63 5.01 0.94 3.59 17.08
3.4
,
,
.
1.58
( )5
( )4 ( )5 :,
, ,
( )Bioindicator
. ( )5
,
] [ 7
.
.
( )5
Fe Pb Zn Mn Cu Cr Co Cd Ni
Fe Zn Cu Pb Mn Co :
Cr Cd Ni Fe Pb :
Zn Mn Cu Cr Cd Co Ni
.
(.)11()9()5
SPSS
. ( )6 ()9( )8( )7
( )6
Cr-Co, CrNi
Cr-Mn, Cr-ZnCrCd
Mn-Zn
Mn-Co, Mn-Cu
Mn-Pb, Mn-Fe
Mn-Ni, Mn-Cd
Fe
48.23
16.63
148.62
30.86
35.08 9.47
Co-Zn
Ni
0.53 0.40
0.23 0.27
0.07 0.14
Co-Cu,
Co-Pb CoFe, CoCd
Zn
14.33
4.64
19.58
4.206
8.66 1.128
Cd
0.55 0.05
0.410.33
0.50 0.09
35
Cu-Ni
Cu-Zn, Cu-Cd
Pb-Ni
Fe-Ni
Ni-Zn, NiCd
Pb-Zn, Pb-Cd
Fe-Zn, Fe-Cd
Zn-Cd
Cr-Cu,
Cr-Fe
Cr-Pb
Co-Ni
Cu-Pb,
Cu-Fe
Pb-Fe
250
200
150
100
50
0
g/g
Cr
Mn
Co
Cu
Pb
Fe
Ni
Zn
Cd
Hypophthalmicthyesmolotrix Richardson
, ,
.
(5) Aktaruzzaman, M. ,Chowdhury M., Fardous, Z. ,
Alam, M. , Hossain, S. and Fakhruddin, M.
Ecological Risk Posed by Heavy Metals Contamination
of Ship Breaking Yards in Bangladesh.,Int. J. Environ.
Res., Vol, 8,No2,pp 469-478.
(6) Denton, G.R.W. and C. Burdon-Jones (1982).
Environmental Effects on Toxicity of Heavy Metals to
Two Species of Tropical Marine Fish from Northern
Australia. Chemistry in Ecology,Vol, 2,pp 233-249.
)7) Erdem, C., 1990. Cadmium accumulation in liver,
spleen, gill and muscle tissues of Tilapia nilotica (L.).
Turk. J. Biochem., Vol. 15,pp. 13-22.
(8) Nicolas R. Bury, Paul A. Walker and Chris N. Glover,
(2002). Nutritive Metal Uptake in Teleost Fish, The
Journal of Experimental Biology Vol.206,pp. 11-23.
36
) 7(
g/g
250
200
150
100
50
0
Cr
Co
Cu Fe
Ni
) 8(
g/g
250
200
150
100
50
0
Cr
Cu
Pb
Fe
) 9(
.
.
.
.
.
, , ,
2 10
,
: ,
.
( ) .
] .[15;11
] [2 ] [6
Penecillium,
.
Aspergillus ,Fusarium
Bacillus .
.
.
.
.
,Aspergillus ,Fusarium: , ,
,
( .)65 ; 62; 34
] ,[36
] [64; 37
].[2
.
[20].
) (
.
].[5
.
.
( )
.
) ( .
][ 10
.
.
%90
%10 ][7
-1 :
200 22 , 32 15,06
.
,
, 26 .
.
.
-2 : ][33
: (
] [1 ][58; 57
) 12-10
.
. ( 5-3 )
;[56; 63;62;47; 46;45
.
]42; 41;24
38
39
( )1
-3 :
( 5 (
7580 48
][22
4 ) :(pH
10
20 3
pH
pH Meter
][22
5 :
100 300
][21
1-5 : 0.5
2 , 3
.
2-5 : 1
2.5 N1 N2
.
))1
,
4.5 .10.0
%3.8 .% 4.9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
7.5
7.5
7.0
7.0
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.0
7.5
4.5
7.5
7.0
10
7.0
9.0
4.7
4.6
4.9
4.9
4.8
4.9
4.9
4.7
4.0
3.8
4.9
4.7
4.9
4.6
4.5
4.8
( )2
1 11 ,
.16,14,10,3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
1
2
3
15
0
0
0
0
0
350
300
0
150
5
6
0
0
0
0
300
250
200
8
9
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
200
400
0
11
12
13
0
0
0
15
0
0
150
150
150
14
15
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3-5 : 0.5
1 k1 1 .k2
-6 : (
)
() ,
][17
Atomic
absorption
pH
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
( )3 ))mg/L
Ca
Zn
Cu
Cd
Pb
Fe
343.1 5.29
0.293
0.055
0.767 13.86
362.7 5.29
0.244
0.048
0.933 13.10
357.8 5.36
0.268
0.057
0.670 13.33
362.7 5.29
0.268
0.054
0.670 13.10
372.5 5.43
0.293
0.060
0.670 13.33
352.9 5.14
0.268
0.044
0.970 13.10
348.0 4.93
0.220
0.049
0.600 12.86
362.7 5.21
0.268
0.056
0.633 13.10
372.5 5.36
0.317
0.056
1.420 13.10
333.3 5.14
0.244
0.039
0.400 13.10
362.7 5.36
0.341
0.061
1.200 13.33
303.9 5.14
0.341
0.056
0.933 13.33
387.3 5.29
0.244
0.060
0.670 12.86
382.3 5.29
0.268
0.055
1.170 13.86
313.7 5.14
0.244
0.047
0.700 12.62
352.9 5.29
0.415
0.062
0.733 12.86
40
......................... - 2015
9 4
spergillus Rhizopus , Fusarium,
Penecillium , .
) (4
Aspergillus 4 .
( )4
1
2
3
Penecilliumchrysogenium - Aspergillus. sp3
Aspergillussp3FusariumoxysporumFusariumoxysporum - Aspergillus. sp4
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
( )5 Bacillus
.
()5
Bacillus Subtilis
1
2
Streptomyces - Bacillus Subtilis
3
Bacillus Subtilis
4
Enviernomental bacteria - Erwiniacarotovoravarcarotovora
5
Enviernomental bacteria - Erwiniacarotovoravarcarotovora
6
Bacillus Subtilis
7
Bacillus Subtilis - Staphylococcus saphophiticus -Bacteroids
8
10
Bacillus Subtilis
11
Bacillus Subtilis
12
13
Bacillus Subtilis
14
15
Bacillus Subtilis
16
-1 ( : )pH
10.0 pH 14 pH4.5 .11
14
. pH
] [38
pH 7.7 11.3 8.6
1.0 ,
.
.] [35] [5
, ] [5
].[39
.
].[25
-2 ( :)%
3.8 % ,% 4.9
( ) ] .[3
] .[40
[
] .8
] [5
.
3.4 ((ppm
( )2
1
. 11 ,
. 16,14,10,3
] [9 ( )1996
pH .
].[9
] .[6
] [3
pH
pH
]. [13
][8
4.4 :
( )3 ,
] [15
.
.
.
41
][3
] [59 ][5
] [27 ] [14
] [31
].[5
-5 : Penicillium
Aspergillus , .
Aspergillus .
] .[20
Aspergillus
][18 ][21
Penicillium
.
] .[18]; [55 ][5
,
Penicillium Aspergillus
] ,Emericella [30 Aspergillus
Cladosporium, Penicillium
] [28
].[29
) 4)
] [1
( ) ,
pH
][32
.
-1 , ( )2014
: ( . )
. .
-2 ) .( 2007
"
. .
-3 ,( .)2008
. . .
. . .
-4 , ; , ; , ,
( )2014
.
. . -.
-5 , , , ( :) 2006
. )
/).
-6 ( )1987 . :
,- ..
-7 , ( .)1999 :
.
- . .
-8 ( )1995 ---
.
-9 , ( )2011
. . . -.
-10 ) . (2007
". . .
. ..
-11 , .)2013(.
. .
. . ..
-12 , , ( )1996 .
, , , . .588 -27
- .
.-13 , ( )1999 .
- . . .74-73
-14 , , ( )2013
( ) .
( ) . - . .
-15 , ( .)2013
( ) . . .
. . ..
-16 , , .
. . 18 : 25-4.
17-.Abed. K. (2007). Effect of iron on the growth of
Ulocladiumcucurbitae. University of sharjah journal of pure
& applied sciences. V. 4,( 2).
18-Bagy, M. (1992). Saprophytic and keratinophilic fungi isolated
from desert and cultivated soils continuously exposed to
cement dust particles in Egypt . Mikrobiologie.V. 147 : (6),p
418 426.
19-Bagy, M. and Hemida S.K, (1992). Air spora and leaf
surface fungi of three plants, exposed to cement dust, in
Assiut, Egypt. A Bulletin of the Faculty of Science. Assiut
University V. 21, p117132.
20-Belnap, J. & Harper, K.T. (1990). Effect of a coal fired
power plant on the rock Lichen Rhizoplacamelanophtalma
chlorophyll degradation and electrolyte leakage. The
Bryologist. V.93(3). p309-312.
21-Biyik, H. Imali, A. Atalan, E. Tufenkci, S.andOgun.
E.(2005) Diversity of microfungi in soil polluted by cement
factory, FreseniusEnvironmental Bulletin, V. 14, p 130-137.
22-Chaturvedi R. K. and. Sanka, K (2006). Laboratory Manual
for the Physico-Chemical Analysis of Soil, Water and Plant,
Wildlife Instituteof India, Dehradun .
2015 - .........................
55- Nagai, K, Sakai, T. Rantiatmodjo, R.M, Suzuki K,
Gams. W. and Okada G, (1995). Studies on the
distribution of alkalophilic and alkali-tolerant soil fungi.
Mycoscience. V. 36, p247-256.
56- Pandey D., Nand S.,(1995). Effect of stone crushers dust
pollution on grain characteristic of Maize. Environ. Ecol.
V.13:p901-903.
57- publication society for Environment and Education.V.7
(7),p 29.
58- Saini. Y,Bhardwaj. N, Gautam. R.(2011 ) Effect of
marble dust on plants around Vishwakarma Industrial Area
(VKIA) in Jaipur, India.J Environ Biol. V.32,(2)p209-12.
59- Semban T. and Chandrashekhar S. (2000). Impact of
crusher pollution on workers in Trichy. Environment and
People, Naeem, S. (1997). Species Redundancy and
Ecosystem Reliability.Conservation Biology. V.12(1).p 3945.
60- Singh, S.N. (1983).Alternation in mineral accumulation
pattern of Triticumaestivum L. exposed to particulate
pollution.Environmental Pollution Series A, Ecological and
Biological. V. 32, ( 3), P 171-177
61- Sivacoumar R., Jayabalou R., Swarnalatha S. and
Balakrishnan K.; (2006). Particulate matter from stone
crushing industry: size distribution and health effects.
Journal of Environmental Engineering- ASCE. V.132,
p405-414.
62- Smith, M.D. & Knapp, A.K. (2003). Dominant species
maintain
63- Somashekar, R.K., R. Ravi and A.M. Ramesh(1999).
Impact of granite mining on some plant species around
quarries and crusher of Bangalore district.Pollution
Research, V.18, p445-451.
64- Walker, B. Kinzig, A. &Langridge, J. (1999). Plant
Attribute Diversity. Resilience. and Ecosystem Function.
Ecosystems. V.2. p95-113.
65- Yachi, S. &Loreau, M. (1999). Biodiversity and
ecosystem productivity in a fluctuating environment: The
insurance hypothesis productivity in a fluctuating
environment. Proceedings of theNational Academy of
Sciences. V.96. p1463-1468.
42
Journal of
Science
Biannual Refereed Academic Journal
Issued by
The Faculty of Science
(Vol. 2)
(Issue 2)
( August 2015)
Journal of Science
Correspondences:
Journal of Science,
Faculty of Science,
Misurata University,
PO Box 2478,
Misurata, Libya.
Email:
journalofscience2013@gmail.com
Journal of Science
Contents
No.
1
Topic
Page
5
11
13
18
22
27
Journal Of Science
Issued by the Faculty of Science
Misurata University
Comparison of Microscopy and Culture Methods for Detection of Blastocystis hominis in stool samples
Mona Radwan Aboalgasm1, Mohamed Chibani Mohamed1, Abdul Hafeez Khan2 and Salem Ramadan
3
Abstract A Sariti
total of 360 stool samples were randomly collected
form patients, presenting different sexes and ages (121 males and
239 females), residing in Wadi Al-shati province. All specimens were
examined by direct smear microscopy, concentration method and two
xenic culture systems (Diphasic Boeck and Drbohlav's and
Monophasic Jone's medium) to detect Blastocystis hominis. The
results shows the low sensitivity of direct smear microscopy (11.29%)
compared to concentration method (15.5%) and in-vitro culture
methods (22.60%). There was significant difference (p<0.05)
between direct smear preparations and the two xenic culture systems
for the detection of B. hominis. There was an almost equal numbers
of positive samples in both culture techniques (85 samples in diphasic
medium and 78 in monophasic medium). Diphasic
Boeck
and
Drbohlav's medium produced highest numbers (7.6006.379) of B.
hominis cells compared to Monophasic Jone's medium (5.0514.938)
after every passage cultures and only the vacuolar morphologic type
of this organism was found in both culture systems. Moreover, a
larger size of vacuolar stage of B. hominis detected in Diphasic
Boeck and Drbohlav's medium, than in Monophasic Jone's medium.
In vitro cultivation does seem worthwhile in the detection of B.
hominis in diagnostic laboratories. Of all the diagnostic techniques
used, diphasic Boeck and Drbohlav's medium was the most sensitive
method for detecting B. hominis in stool specimens.
diagnostic techniques direct smears microscopy, formalinether concentration, and two xenic culture systems (diphasic
Boeck and Drbohlav's medium, and monophasic Jone's
medium) for the detection of Blastocystis hominis in stool
samples. The two xenic media (diphasic and monophasic)
were used to investigate, which culture medium could be more
efficient and suitable for diagnosis of B. hominis in laboratory.
Materials and Methods
During the period of October 2010 to end of June
2011, a total of 360 stool specimens, presenting different sexes
and ages (121 males and 239 females, aged from less than one
year to 90 years) were freshly collected from patients, who
routinely submitted their stool samples for parasitological
analysis to Brack Hospital and Medical Technology
Department, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Brack.
Each sample was processed and examined
immediately after collection using direct faecal smears
(Normal saline, Iodine, Eosin) [5]. Soon after direct smear
microscopy, the samples were concentrated by formalin-ether
sedimentation technique as described by [5 and 6]. All the
collected faecal specimens were inoculated and cultured into
two culture systems upon arrival at the laboratory, at the same
time after the routine (direct smear examination) in
Monophasic Jone's Medium and Diphasic Xenic System
Boeck and Drbohlav's inspissated egg medium (B-D) LockeEgg Serum (LES) Medium as described by [11] and [37]
respectively. The results for positive samples of B. hominis
of the detection techniques were expressed as percentages, and
statistical analysis was carried out by using chi square test. A
probability (p) value of less than 0.05 was considered as
significant whenever appropriate.
Introduction
Blastocystis hominis is a singlecelled enteric protozoan that
has a world-wide distribution [27]. The wide range in
prevalence of B. hominis seen between countries can be
attributed to several factors such as socioeconomic conditions,
also to the different diagnostic methods used for the detection
([21]. The most common diagnostic technique used worldwide
for identification of Blastocystis is the permanent stain. The
use of xenic cultures, in which Blastocystis is grown in-vitro
with non-specific microorganisms, has been shown to be more
sensitive in detecting this organism, but it is not commonly
used in the diagnostic laboratories [13, 29 and 34]. In Generd,
the diagnosis of human infections with B. hominis is usually
based on detection of its typical vacuolar form in a light
microscopy of faecal samples, directly, either as a
simplesmear or after some form of concentration. Since, this
organism is the most frequent isolate in human stools in Libya
[2; 3 and 8]) and so far only two studies have been carried out
to compare sensitivity of direct smear, concentration and xenic
culture for the detection of B. hominis in stool specimens [8
and 22] , therefore this study was aimed to compare four
Results
The results of comparison of diagnostic techniques
showed 11.29 , 15.5 , 21.6 and 23.61% positive rates for
B.hominis in stools by directed smear microscopy,
concentration, Jone's medium and Boeck and Drbohlav's
medium respectively. All the stool specimens found positive
in direct smears, were also found positive in concentration,
and both culture methods (40 of 360). Eighty-five (23.61%)
samples were positive in one or more of the
diagnostictechniques. Direct smear microscopy, and
concentration showed significantly low sensitivity (p<0.05)
compared to both culture techniques for identifying B.
Journal of Science
Concentration
Culture
Normal saline
Iodine
Eosin
Formalin-ether
sedimentation
Monophasic
Jone's Medium
34 (9.44)
45 (12.5)
43 )11.94)
56 )15.5(
78 )21.6)
85 (23.61)
360
Direct smear
(+Pos)
Concentration
(-Neg)
Culture (+Pos)
Direct smear
(+Pos)
Concentration
(+Pos)
Culture (-Neg)
275
Number of samples
Detection efficiency (%)
Direct smear
(-Neg)
Concentration
(+Pos)
Culture (+Pos)
Methods
Direct smear
(-Neg)
Concentration
(-Neg)Culture
(-Neg)
Status
Direct smear
(+Pos)
Concentration
(+Pos)Culture
(+Pos)
Table 2 : Comparison of the Detection efficiency (%) of direct smear microscopy, formalinether Concentration
and culture methods for the detection of B. hominis.
40
11.11
14
3.80
22
6.10
9
2.50
0
0.00
Table 3 : Growth profile of B. hominis in Monophasic Jone,s Medium and Diphasic Boeek Drbohlav,s Medium
Culture Methods
Mean SD
78 )21.6)
2-20
5.054.94
85 (23.61)
3-25
7.606.38
>0.05
Discussion
Blastocystis hominis is a common human intestinal protozoan,
reported in children and adults in developing countries [19].
Diagnosis of B. hominis public health centers, and clinical
laboratories is mostly made by the demonstration of typical
vacuolar form (approximately 10 to 15m in diameter), with a
large central vacuole and 1 to 4 nuclei in the peripheral
cytoplasm. The small forms of B. hominis like multivacuolar,
avacuolar, and cysts are not used for detection in the routine
microscopy, which are also present in the stool samples and
usually are missed during laboratory examinations in direct
Table. 4: Comparison of the prevalence and diagnostic methods used for the detection of Blastocystis hominis in Libya
Reference
Locality/Category
Concentration
18.55
[24]
[23]
[2]
[22]
[25]
[12]
[3]
[9]
[8]
Present study
Culture Techniques
ND
Jone's
Medium
ND
26.21
34.1
ND
42.31
29.6
ND
ND
ND
6.7
ND
ND
ND
22.69
ND
ND
ND
12.57
ND
ND
ND
18.3
21.2
ND
ND
20.21
ND
ND
ND
14
21
ND
35.5
11.26
15.55
21.66
23.61
ND = Not Determined
A prevalence of 26.21%, 34.10% and 42.31% by
using
direct smear, concentration and Boeck and
Drbohlav's Medium respectively were reported from
patients attending Central Laboratory in Sebha [22],
however prevalence of 14.0%, 21.0 % and 35.5% by
direct smear, concentration and Boeck and Drbohlav's
Medium respectively were reported from food handlers in
Sirte [8]. A prevalence of 18.30% and 21.20% in
community population in Wadi Al-Shati were reported by
using direct smear and concentration respectively [3]. AlFellani et al. [2] reported prevalence of 18.55% in patients
Journal of Science
2-
3-
4-
5-
67-
Journal Of Science
Issued by the Faculty of Science
Misurata University
Study of Color Change in Softening Plant Distribution Network at
Libyan Iron and Steel Company
K.A.B.Najm,1* M.O.Al-Qubbi2, K.A.K.Abo-Zakia3
Introduction
10
11
Journal Of Science
Misurata University
The Effect of Rheb (Ras) Homolog Enriched in Brain Expression in Claw Muscle During the Molt Cycle
in the Land Crab, Gecarcinus Lateralis
Ali Moftah Abuhagr 1*Kyle S. MacLea 2Donald L. Mykles 3
Introduction
In mammals as well as in invertebrates, skeletal
muscle is a plastic tissue that changes greatly in response to
physiological cues. Although there are many differences
between these divergent animals in terms of their skeletal
muscle physiology, some important components have been
shown to be important in both types of organisms. In
particular, there are important similarities in the processes of
atrophy and hypertrophy in both types of organism.
Mammalian muscles have been shown to be altered under
conditions such as altered nervous innervation, hormonal
manipulation, stretching, disuse atrophy, and disease wasting,
etc.[1], [2]. A simpler model of these processes is found in the
decapod crustaceans.
In decapods, we see a regular pattern of atrophy and
hypertrophy in skeletal muscles [3], [4]. Given the necessity,
among organisms with a rigid exoskeleton, of molting in
order to grow larger, withdrawal of muscles from the old
exoskeleton is a necessary precursor. In particular, the basiischial joint at the base of the chelipeds is a constriction
point for withdrawal of the large closer muscle of the
propodus [5], [6], and so atrophy of claw muscles is a
requirement for successful molting. Afterwards, expansion
of the new exoskeleton and subsequent hypertrophy of the
skeletal muscles completes the growth process for that molt
cycle.
This extensive atrophy in crustacean claw muscles is
seen in muscles of the chelipeds only, and not in thoracic or
walking leg muscles, which do not undergo appreciable
atrophy during the molt process [7], [8]. Claw muscle
13
14
Journal of Science
60
A.
40
6
20
0
5
Intact 1 day 3 day 7 day 14 day
Day Post-ESA
B.
100
Day Post-ESA
80
Log Rheb
80
100
Log Rheb
15
60
40
6
20
0
5
10-R
15-R
16
Journal of Science
29-
30-
3132-
33-
34-
35-
36-
37-
17
Journal Of Science
Issued by the Faculty of Science
Misurata University
Introduction
Reliable measurements of the human dentition are
needed in many disciplines of dentistry. Such measurements
are generally made from dental casts or directly from the
teeth in the oral cavity. These measurements are
predominantly used for research and clinical purposes,
particularly in orthodontics. Application of such data in the
day to day clinical practice has, however, remained limited.
In the past, researchers have employed the contact method
using simple instruments such as a pair of dividers with a
millimeter ruler [1,2,3] or sliding calibrated calipers for
dental cast measurements.[4,5] Other researchers have used
the non-contact methods, which include standard
photographs[6] photocopies,[7] sophisticated occlusograms
[8] and laser holograms of the occlusal aspects of the
teeth.[9] Computerized methods for collecting information
from photographs and photocopies have also been described,
saving considerable time and effort.[10,11] Various terms
have been used to define the tooth width, and there is a
difference of opinion as to what constitutes the tooth width
and how best to measure it. The mesiodistal dimension of a
tooth, i.e. the distance between its mesial and distal surfaces,
which is the commonly used measure of the occlusal size of
the tooth,[12] has been variously defined as diameter,[13,14]
breadth[15,16] and width.[17] According to Moorrees[14]
the term crown length used by some investigators, as
synonymous with mesiodistal teeth diameter, is not
appropriate. Neither length nor breadth is completely
18
Journal of Science
19
Lower Arch
l1
30
l2
30
RC
30
PM1
30
PM2
30
M1
30
l1
30
l2
30
LC
30
PM1
30
PM2
30
M1
30
5.45
5.96
6.67
6.86
7.07
10.90
5.45
6.00
6.68
6.94
7.08
10.95
0.64
0.44
0.48
0.51
0.45
0.53
0.63
0.51
0.45
0.53
0.40
0.62
0.11
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.82
0.10
0.11
0.09
0.08
0.10
0.07
0.11
4.80
5.05
5.81
5.85
6.00
9.77
4.82
5.01
5.83
5.92
6.17
9.41
8.46
6.75
7.60
8.42
8.34
11.74
8.38
6.81
7.43
8.51
8.20
12.03
(11)
(12)
(C)
(PM1)
(PM2)
(M)
right
left
0.12
0.15
0.25
0.12
0.14
0.23
0.09
0.12
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.18
Lower arch
righ
t
0.02
0.10
0.14
0.10
0.30
0.16
left
0.05
0.10
0.07
0.24
0.10
0.09
Tooth
Right
upper arch
Lower arch
l1
l2
C
PM1
PM2
M1
Left
l1
l2
C
PM1
PM2
M1
30
30
30
30
30
30
6.60
8.02
6.35
6.32
5.46
4.96
11.68
7.34
7.15
7.42
6.42
4.88
30
30
30
30
30
30
6.56
7.56
6.84
6.52
5.71
4.83
11.53
8.46
6.72
7.66
5.68
5.62
Results
Table 1 demonstrates the error of the method by double
determination. It was found that the lower right central
incisor exhibited the lowest error measurement (0.02) while
the lower right secondpremolar exhibited the highest (0.30).
Table 2 shows the mean mesiodistal tooth width values for
all teeth in both upper and lower arches for both sexes. The
20
Journal of Science
21
Journal Of Science
Antifungal Potential in Crude Extracts of Five Selected Brown Seaweeds Collected from the Western
Libyan Coast
1
22
Journal of Science
23
species
Cl
Sargassum vulgare
(IZ)
12
Alternaria
alternata
11
Penicillium
citrinum
9
Aspergillus flavus
14
Aspergillus niger
8
Aspergillus
ochraceous
25
Epicoccum nigrum
10
Fusarium
oxysporum
7
Cladosporium
cladosporioides
Solvents: A: Cyclohexane
acetate E: Ethanol.
22
A
*11
B
7
C
0
D
0
E
0
19
*14
*7
*8
22
10
20
*10
12
*15
0
0
*8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
*7
*8
16
*21
11
*10
14
10
*20
*8
*7
*8
16
*19
*7
B:
Chloroform
C: Aceton
24
2- Cystoseira barbata:
The obtained results from Table,(2) revealed that antifungal
activity varied according to the employed organic solvent
and tested fungal species. It was observed that cyclohexane
was the best organic solvent for extracting the effective
antifungal material from the applied algal species and
exhibited the highest antifungal potential particularly against
F. oxysporum followed by, A. ochraceous and E. nigrum.
The weakest inhibitory action of cyclohexanic extract was
recorded against A. alternata and A. flavus. A moderate
inhibitory action was recorded against P. citrinum, A. niger,
and C. cladosporiodes. Chloroform and ethanol extracts
followed cyclohexanic extract as antifungal activity
exhibiting low potentiality against most of tested fungi.
There was no activity recorded in chloroform extract against
A. alternata, A. niger and E. nigrum. A slight antifungal
activity of chloroform extract was recorded against F.
oxysporum followed by A. flavus, A. ochraceous, P.
citrinum, and C. cladosporiodes. Five of the experimented
fungi did not negatively affected by ethanol extract whereas
the other three fungal species were slightly inhibited. Both
acetone and ethyl acetate extracts displayed the lowest
antifungal activity since the former did not display
antifungal activity against all experimented fungi. Similarly,
all experimented fungi except F. oxysporium resisted ethyl
acetate extract. (Table. 2. Fig.8).
Table (2): Antifungal activities of different organic extracts of
Cystoseira barbatain comparable with Clotrimazole (Cl) and
Nystatin (N) against 8 fungal species using disk diffusion technique
and diameter of the inhibition zone (mm).
D: Ethyl
Fungal species
S. vulgare
Alternariaalternate
Penicil iumcitrinum
Aspergil usflavus
Aspergil usniger
Aspergil usochraceous
Epicoccumnigrum
Fusariumoxysporum
Cladosporiumcladosporioides
N Cl
12
11
9
14
8
25
10
7
Solvents: A: Cyclohexane
acetate E: Ethanol
A. ochraceous
22
19
22
10
20
16
10
16
A
*9
*13
*10
*15
16
16
*23
15
C. barbata (IZ)
B C D
0 0 0
*7 0 0
*8 0 0
0 0 0
*8 0 0
0 0 0
9 0 *7
*7 0 0
E
0
*8
0
0
*8
0
8
0
Journal of Science
Cycl.
25
Nyst.
Fungal species
3- Dictyopteris memberanacea:
The highest antifungal activity was recorded for
cyclohexanic extract followed by chloroform and ethanol
extracts. The maximum inhibitory action of cyclohexanic
extract was recorded against F. oxysporum, and a moderate
inhibitory action was recorded against P. citrinum, A.
ochraceous, and E. nigrum. A slight inhibitory action was
recorded for A. alternata, C. cladosporiodes and A. niger.
Chloroform extract did not display inhibitory action against
A. alternata and E. nigrum whereas the remaining fungal
species were slightly inhibited. Both acetone and ethyl
acetate extracts presented the weakest inhibitory action since
all the experimented fungi do not inhibited except F.
oxysporum. A similar slight inhibitory action was recorded
for F. oxysporum when treated with ethyl acetate extract. No
inhibitory action was recorded for ethanol extract against A.
alternata, A. flavus, A. niger, E. nigrum, and C.
cladosporiodes whereas a slight inhibitory action was
recorded against the remaining fungal species (Table 3.Fig.
9).
4- Dictyotadichotoma:
n general, extracts of D. dichotoma displayed low antifungal
potential in comparable with the other applied seaweeds.
Cyclohexanic and ethanolic extracts of D. dichotoma
exhibited higher antifungal activity than the other three
applied extracts. Cyclohexanic extract was more effective
than both employed patented medicine reagents. The tested
fungi varied in response to cyclohexanic extract since A.
alternata and A. niger were not retarded. A. flavus, A.
ochraceusand C. cladosporiodes were slightly or
moderately inhibited but P. citrinum, E. nigrum, and F.
oxysporum were strongly inhibited. Chloroform extract did
not display inhibitory against both A. alternata and A. niger
whereas the remaining of experimented fungi were slightly
inhibited. All tested fungi did not affected by acetone extract
of D. dichotoma, except F. oxysporum which was slightly
inhibited. Similarly, no inhibitory action was recorded
against all tested fungi resulting from ethyl acetate
application. Ethanol extract showed different results ranging
from no inhibitory action against A. alternata, A. flavus, E.
nigrum, and C.cladosporiodes to slight inhibitory action
against the remaining three fungal species (Table 4).
Table (4): Antifungal activities of different organic extracts of D.
dichotoma in comparable with Clotrimazole (Cl) and Nystatin (N)
Alternariaalternata
Penicilliumcitrinum
Aspergillusflavus
Aspergillusniger
Aspergillusochraceous
Epicioccumnigrum
Fusariumoxysporum
Cladosporiumcladosporioides
N
12
11
9
14
8
25
10
7
22
19
22
10
20
16
10
16
Cl
D. dichotoma
0
*15
*10
0
*10
*15
15
*7
0
*7
7
0
*8
*9
*8
*7
0
0
0
0
0
0
*7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
*7
0
*7
*7
0
9
0
5- Colpomeniasinosa :
Cyclohexanic extract exhibited the highest antifungal
activity in comparable with the other applied extracts. The
strongest inhibitory action was recorded against F.
oxysporum, followed by, C. cladosporiodes. The weakest
inhibitory action was recorded against A. flavus, A. niger,
A. ochraceus, and E. nigrum. A moderate inhibitory action
was monitored against P. citrinum. Chloroform extract did
not inhibit both A. alternata and A. niger but displayed a
slight inhibitory action against the remaining tested fungi.
Acetone extract exhibited no inhibitory action against all
tested fungi except for C. cladosporiodes which was
strongly inhibited and E. nigrum, which were slightly
inhibited. Ethyl acetate extract exerted the weakest
inhibitory action since all the tested fungi did not negatively
affected by its application except for F. oxysporum which
was slightly inhibited. Ethanol extract showed a slight
inhibitory action against all experimented fungi except for
A.alternata, A. flavus and A. niger which exhibited no
inhibitory action (Table 5. Fig.10).
Table (5): Antifungal activities of different organic extracts of
Colpomeniasinosa in comparable with Clotrimazole (Cl) and
Nystatin (N) against 8 fungal species using disk diffusion technique
and diameter of the inhibition zone (mm)
Fungal species
Cl
C. sinosa (IZ)
A
Alternariaalternata
12
22
*9
Penicilliumcitrinum
11
19
*15
*7
*6
Aspergillusflavus
22
*10
*9
Aspergillusniger
14
10
12
Aspergillusochraceous
20
*12
*7
*7
Epicoccumnigrum
25
16
*12
*9
Fusariumoxysporum
10
10
*23
*7
*0
Cladosporiumcladosporioides
16
16
*7
16
*7
Solvents: A: Cyclohexane
Ethyl acetate E: Ethanol.
B: Chloroform
C: Acetone D:
Clot.
Nyst.
Cyclo.
26
sensitive for the majority of the tested algae and the strong
inhibitory action was recorded particularly for cyclohexanic
extracts. Cyclohexanic extract of
Cystoseira barbata,
Colpomenia sinosa, and Sargassum vulgare displayed the
highest inhibitory actions against Fusarium oxysporum. No
inhibitory action was recorded against Fusarium oxysporum
with ethyl acetate extract of D. dichotoma, acetone extract of
S. vulgare, C. barbata, Colpomenia sinosa and H.
musciformis. The other extracts of the experimented
seaweeds exhibited slight inhibitory actions against Fusarium
oxysporum. Similarly, Kim and Kim [14] reported that
extract of Nostoc commune displayed significant inhibitory
action against Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici. Asnad
and Tanver [4] recorded antifungal activity of the water and
ethanol extracts of eight seaweed species against Fusarium
solani and F. oxysporum isolated from deteriorated fruits and
vegetables. Galal et al.[7] reported that crude ethyl acetate
extract of Padinagymnospora and methanolic extract of
Codium fragile exhibited strong activity against Fusarium
oxysporum. Lavanya and Veerappan [15] reported the
minimum inhibitory action of Sargassumwightii was recorded
in methanol water extracts against Fusarium udum.
Discussion
The present study is an endeavor towards the
screening antifungal activities through crude extracts of five
marine macro-algal species belonging toPhaeophyta against
eight fungal species. The marine seaweeds were extracted
with five different organic solvents.
The present screening revealed that cyclohexanic
extracts were almost the most effective and exhibited a broad
spectrum inhibitory action irrespective to the experimented
algal extract or fungal species. On the contrary, some algal
References
extracts did not show recognizable inhibitory actions, but
1- Abbott, I.A. and Hollenberg, G. J. (1976): Marine algae of
some others enhanced fungal growth of some species. Some
California. pp. [i]-xii, 1-827, 701 figs. Stanford, California:
of tested extracts which did not alter the experimented fungal
Stanford University Press.
species suggesting that either that they are not able to diffuse 2- Ainsworth, G. C. (1971). Ainsworth and Bisby"s Dictionary of
across the agar or that the extracting condition does not allow
the fungi. Common-wealth Mycological Institute. Kew Surrey,
the isolation of active compounds with properties to alter
England.
fungal growth under these conditions. Similar finding was 3- Aleem AA (1981). Contributions to the study of the marine algae
of the Red Sea. New or little known algae from the west coast of
reported by [12].
Saudi Arabia. Bull. Fac. Sci. KAUJ. 5: 1-49.
Both chloroform and ethanol followed cyclohexanic
extracts exhibited the highest antifungal potential whereas 4- Asnad, and Abbass T. (2014). Screening of potential seaweeds
against Fusarium species isolated from fruits and vegetables in
both acetone and ethyl acetate extracts exhibited the lowest
Baluchistan, Pakistan. International Journal of Biosciences(IJB).
antifungal activity. Inconsistently, Yi et al. [30], reported that
4, No. 3, p. 131-138.
the ethanol extract of 23 species of marine algae was the 5 - Cosoveanu,
A.,
OanaAxine,
and B. Iacomi.
strongest antifungal activity in comparable with acetone and
(2010).Antifungal activity of macroalgae
extracts. Uasvm
methanol-toluene extracts which exhibited the lowest
Bucharest, Series A, Vol. LIII. 442 447.
antimicrobial activity. Variable findings were obtained by 6- Freile-Pelegrin, Y., Morales, J.L. (2004). Antibacterial activity
in marine algae from the coast of Yucatan, Mexico. Bot. Mar. 47:
several authors concerning the best solvent for extraction the
140-146.
bioactive compounds. In this respect, Manivannanet al., [17]
7Galal, H. R. M., Salem, W.M. and F. Nasr El-Deen. (2011).
revealed that the strongest antimicrobial activity was
Biological control of some pathogenic fungi using marine algae.
exhibited by the methanol extract and the least by chloroform
Res. J. of Microbiol., 6 (8): 564- 557.
and Petroleum ether. The present study revealed that the 8- Gayral,
P. (1966). Lea algues des cotes francaises
experimented fungi exhibited variable responses for the tested
(MancheetAtlantiquea). 632 PP. paris.
seaweed extracts depending upon the applied solvent, tested 9- Hellio, C., Bremer, G., Pons, A.M, Le Gal, Y., and
algal and fungal species. In this respect, Alternaria alternata
Bourgougnon, N. (2000). Inhibition of the development of
microorganisms (bacteria and fungi) by extracts of marine algae
exhibited the highest resistance for all five tested algal
from Brittany, France. Appl Microbial Biotechnol., 54:5439.
extracts except in case of cyclohexanic extracts of most
seaweeds and chloroform extract of S. vulgare which 10- Hellio, C., De La Broise, D. Dufosse, L. Le Gal, Y.
Bourgougnon, N. (2001). Inhibition of marine bacteria by
displayed slight inhibitory action. Inconsistently, Galal.et al.,
extracts of macroalgae: Potential use for environmentally friendly
[7] reported that crude ethyl acetate extract of Padina
antifouling paints. Mar. Environ. Res. 52(3): 231-247.
gymnospora and methanolic extract of Codium fragile 11- Indira K.S., Balakrishnan, M. Srinivasan, S. Bragadeeswaran
exhibited strong activity against most of the tested fungal
and T. Balasubramanian (2013). Evaluation of in vitro
Alternaria alternata, and Alternaria brassicicola. [5]
antimicrobial property of seaweed (Halimeda tuna) from
reported that Alternaria alternata was to be the most
Tuticorin coast, Tamil Nadu, Southeast coast of India. African
Journal of Biotechnology 12(3) : 284-289.
sensitive isolate to Alariae sculenta extracts. On contrast to
Alternaria alternata, Fusarium oxysporum was the most
Journal of Science
12- Jimenez, E., Dorta, F., Medina, C., Ramirez, A., Ramirez, I.,
and Hugo, Pena-Cortes (2011).
Anti-Phytopathogenic
Activities of Macro-Algae Extracts. Marine Drugs, 9, 739-756.
13- Khanzada, A.K., W. Shaikh, T.G. Kazi, S., Kabir, and Soofia,
S. (2007). Antifungal activity, elemental analysis and
determination of total protein of seaweed, Solieriaro busta
(Greville) Kylin from the coast of Karachi. Pak J. Bot., 39 (3):
931 - 937.
14- Kim, J. and J.D. Kim. (2008). Inhibitory Effect of Algal
Extracts on Mycelial Growth of the Tomato-Wilt Pathogen
,Fusarium oxysporum, f. sp, Lycopersici. Mycobiology 36(4) :
242-248.
15- Lavanya, R., and N. Veerappan. (2012). Pharmaceutical
Properties of Marine Macroalgal Communities from Gulf of
Mannar against Human Fungal Pathogens. Asian Pacific Journal
of Tropical Disease: 5320 5323.
16- Lee, M.H., Kyung, B.L., Sang, M.O., Bong, H.L. and Hee,
Y.C. (2010). Antifungal Activities of Dieckol Isolated from the
Marine
Brown
Alga
Ecklonia
cava
against
Trichophytonrubrum. J. Korean Soc. Appl. Biol. Chem. 53(4),
504-507.
17- Manivannan, K., Karthikai, Devi, G., Anantharaman, P. and
Balasubramanian, T. (2011). Antimicrobial potential of selected
brown seaweeds from Vedalai coastal waters, Gulf of Mannar.
Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Biomedicine , 114-120.
18- Martin, M. K. (1995). The potential for using cyano bacteria
(blue-green algae) and algae in the biological control of plant
pathogenic bacteria and fungi. European Journal of Plant
Pathology, 101(6):585-599.
19- Nizamuddin, M. (1981). Contribution to the marine algae of
Libya: Dictyotales. Bibliotheca Phycological 54:1-122.J.Cramer.
Vaduz.
20- Nizamuddin, M. (1991). The green marine algae of Libya .
ELGA 230 pp . Bern.
21- Nizamuddin, M., West, J. and Menez , E. (1979). A list of
marine algae from Libya .Bot . Mar. 3 (7): 465-476.
22- Orandy, M.A., Verde, M.J., Martinez-Lozano, S.J.,
Waksman, N.H. ( 2004). Active fractions from species of marine
algae. Intern J Exp Bot; 16570.
23- Peres, J.C.F., De Carvalho, L.R., Gonalez, E., Berian, L.O.S.,
Felicio, J., Darc. (2013). Evaluation of antifungal activity of
seaweed extracts.
24- Rajauria, G., and Abu-Ghannam, N. (2013). Isolation and
Partial Characterization of Bioactive Fucox-anthin from
Himanthalia elongate Brown Seaweed: A TLC-Based Approach.
International Journal of Analytical Chemistry. Volume 2013,
Article ID 802573, pp. 1 6..
25- Raper, K.B., and Fennell, P.L. (1965). The genus Aspergillus.
Williams and Wilkins, Baltimor, USA. 686 pp.
26- Saidani, B.F., Benabdesselam, F. and Touati, N. (2012).
Antifungal activity of methanolic extracts of four Algerian
marine algae species. African Journal of Biotechnology 11(39):
9496-9500.
27- Taylor W. S. (1985): Marine algae of the eastern tropical and
subtropical coasts of Americas. ANN Arbor the university of
Michigan press.
28- Thenmozhi, K., Selvarani, T., and Karthikeya, B. P. (2013).
Estimation of antifungal activity of aqueous extracts of brown
SeaweedSargassiumillicifolium. ARAP, 3 (1): 374 377.
29- Yang, R.Y., Li, C.Y., Lin, Y.C., Peng, G.T., She, Z.G., and
Zhou, S.N. (2006). Lactones from a brown alga endophytic
fungus (No. ZZF36) from the South China Sea and their
antimicrobial activities. Bioorg Med ChemLett,16: 4205-4208.
30- Yi, Z., Yin-Shan., C., and Hai-Sheng, L. (2001). Screening for
antibacterial and antifungal activities in some marine algae from
27
Journal Of Science
Issued by the Faculty of Science
Misurata University
Highly Production of Omega-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acid by Developed Fermenter Strategy and Design
Thureia. A. El-Sharif
Introduction
nowadays importantly is omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty
acids (-3PUFAs) become one the most medically important
substances nowadays.
These are included Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA),
Eicosapentaenoic Acid (EPA), and Alpha-linolenic acid
(ALA) [17]. It played an importantly in human nutrition, in
nutraceutical and pharmaceutical development and in
preventing human disease such as infertility disease, cancer
disease, diabetic disease, Alzheimer disease, as well as in
preventing of AIDs infections[12]. However the main source
of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) is fishes, such sardine
and salmon [14]. Researchers have established production of
-3 poly-unsaturated fatty acid by many species of
heterotrophic* microalgae such a Thraustochytrid sp., and
Schizochytrium sp those are considered as oil sources instead
of fish oil[13]. Schizochytrium. limacinum SR21 is a
promising algae strain for DHA in highyield production and it
has been commercially of large scaling [18]. According to the
previous study that they can be produced -3 polyunsaturated
fatty acid from different species of heterotrophic microalgae in
high potential rates by optimizing media conditions and
compositions [9,11,12, 21,23, 24, 25]. Such further studied
results to developed culture strategy as Chi et al in 2007 could
be obtained 34%of PUFA from S. Limacinium MYA-1381
/SR21
Journal of Science
29
cells/mL, and the optical density was 0.5 at 660 nm. Then the
seed culture for 48h are incubated in classical batch
fermentation culture at 25C for 2-5 days with 200 rpm in an
orbital shaker.
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
OD Y1
TABLE 1
media
DCW
(g/L)
Total
OMEGA-3
Lipid(g/L) (%)
Classical
batch
4.5-6.0 1.8-2.0
45-50%
Developed
batch
30-35
69.9-73%
20-23
30