Luminescent bacteria test,  aditya parmar
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Luminescent bacteria test, aditya parmar

on

  • 593 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
593
Views on SlideShare
592
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.slideshare.net 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Luminescent bacteria test,  aditya parmar Luminescent bacteria test, aditya parmar Document Transcript

  • Name: Aditya Parmar Date: 17th November 2010Supervisor: Dr. Olga Calvo di AlegreInstitute: Institute of Landscape and Plant Ecology.Experiment: Luminescent Bacteria Inhibition Test with 3, 5- DCPINTRODUCTIONThe purpose behind the test was to define the toxicity influence of 3,5-DCP on the naturally occurring bio-luminescentbacteria. The experiment attempted to establish a Dose Response Relationship with the luminescent characteristic of thebacteria. This method gives an advantage over the other methods with aquatic organisms in terms of time, effort andregulations.PRINCIPLEThe Vibrio fischeri is bio luminescent bacteria which convert chemical energy in to visible light. The inhibition of theemitted light is directly proportionate to the dosage of the toxic chemical, which is 3,5- DCP in our case.METHODOLOGYThe first step is to prepare different dosage concentration solution of 3,5-DCP with 2% NaCl solution. In this experimentwe are using five samples with concentration of 0mg/L, 5mg/L, 10mg/L, 20mg/L and 40mg/L. Step two, is to activate thefrozen bacteria (-20°C) with a special solution. During the whole experiment the solution with bacteria and toxin has beenkept at 15°C to give bacteria an optimum temperature to function normally. After the preparations of both solutions 0.5mlof bacteria solution has been mixed with 0.5ml of different concentrations of 3,5-DCP. This mixing process was done at20sec intervals to keep the same time interval during the calculation of inhibition. After the mixing the solution, it will bekept for 30 minutes to give time to toxin to act on bacteria. We will also use a standardizing solution which is provided bythe manufacturer of luminometer to check the correctness of our equipment; the standard solution should give an inhibitionpercentage reading of 40% - 60%. Third and the last step is to measure the inhibition of the different concentrations withthe help of luminometer. We have to remember that the time interval between all the measurements should be equal, in thiscase as already mentioned it is 20sec. Time keeping is key to this experiment.RESULTSThe mean inhibition percentages in the table were plotted against different concentrations in point graph. The data whichfluctuated more than 3% from its replica was discarded to avoid error in the result. Dose Response relationship curve Sample No. 3,5-DCP Inhibition Average ( mg/L) (%) 120 1. 0mg/L 0 100 2. 5mg/L 18.25 3. 10mg/L 45.25 80 inhibition % 4. 20mg/L 82.5 60 5. 40mg/L 99 40 Standardisation Solution readings was between 40-60 % 20EC50 is the concentration where 50% of inhibition isobserved. 0EC50** = 11 mg/L (approximately) 0 10 20 30 40 50(**Equation of the polynomial function was used to derive this value) mg/L of 3,5-DCPConclusion and DiscussionThe derived curve shows a typical dose response relationship as it was expected. The bacteria responded to different dosesin terms of reduced luminescence proportionately to the concentration of toxin. Everything went well except from someunusual and unanswered decrease in Electrical Conductivity (EC*) of the solution for the concentrations more than5ml/L, when it was measured just after the experiment. To reconfirm EC* was again measured next day but there were novariations from previous day’s figures.The test off course tells us about the short term and high concentration impact of the Chlorinated Hydrocarbons (CHC)on Vibrio fischeri , but from these results we cannot draw conclusion about the behaviour of bacteria in long term exposureconditions to CHC. In the experiment very high concentrations were used to depict the effect, but in realism bacteria mayencounter low concentrations for a longer period. We are unsure how will bacteria evolve itself in long run in the presenceof low concentrations; it might develop a resistance to such toxins.Last but not least, we did not talk about the relevance of this experiment to the long run ecological impact of CHC onecosystem as a whole.