000			05169nam a2200349 4500
003			OSt
005			20220316145243.0
008			210729b ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040			_cCvSU Main Campus Library
041	0		_aeng
082	0	4	_a615 _bAr2 2018
100			_98768 _aArca, Ermie Jay B. _eauthor
245	1	0	_aAntibacterial activity of Pandacaqui Puti (Tabernaemontana Pandacaqui Poir) plant parts extract against staphylococcus and Escherichia coli / _cby Ermie Jay B. Arca and Clarize Z. Candalo.
260			_aIndang, Cavite : _bCavite State University- Main Campus, _c2018.
300			_axii, 76 pages : _billustrations ; _c28 cm.
336			_2rdacontent _atext
337			_2rdamedia _aunmediated
338			_2rdacarrier _avolume
500			_aResearch Study (Bachelor of Science in Medical Technology) Cavite State University.
504			_aIncludes bibliographical references.
508			_aCollege of Nursing (CON), Department of Medical Technology
520	3		_aARCA, ERMIE JAY B., CANDADO, CLARICE Z. Antibacterial Activity Of Pandakaki Puti (Tabernaemontana Pandacaqui Poir) Plant Parts Extract Against Staphylococcus Aureus and Escherichia Coll. Undergraduate Research Study. Bachelor of Science in Medical Technology. Cavite State University, Indang, Cavite. May 2018. This study on the antibacterial activity of T. pandacaquiPoirplant parts extract aimed to determine the concentration of the plant parts extract that inhibit bacterial growth of the S. aureus and E. coli in terms of inhibition zones; to determine the significant differences among the inhibition zones caused by the positive control and the leaf and stem extracts; and to determine the minimum inhibitory concentration of the plant part extract that caused the highest inhibition zone. The antibacterial activity of T. pandacaqui Poir was laid out in a Completely Randomized Design (CRD) with four replications of the different treatments of the leaf and stem extracts of T. pandacaqui Poir. The antibacterial activity was done using Kirby-Bauer Test (Disk Diffusion Method). Five treatments were prepared for leaf and stem extracts separately; 0.1 g/ m1 ,0.2 g/ml, 0.3g/ml, 0.4 glml and 0.5 g/ml, respectively. On the other hand, the test organisms, namely, Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli, were purchased from Philippine National Collection of Microorganism, University of the Philippines Los Banos. The test organisms were sub cultured and standardized. The filter paper impregnated with the different concentration of leaf and stem extracts were placed onto the inoculated surface of the Mueller Hinton Agar (MHA) and pressed firmly and were incubated. After 24 hours of incubation, the zones of inhibition were measured and interpreted using the Clinical Laboratory Standard Institute (CLSI) standard. On the plates with S. aureus, the concentrations of leaf extracts that yielded a Resistant interpretation were the 0.1 g/ml, 0.4 g/m1 and 0.5 g/ml with inhibition zones of 12,25 mm, 12 mm and 10 mm, respectively. The leaf extracts that yielded an Intermediate interpretation were the 0.2 g/m1 and 0.3 g/ml with inhibition zones of 14.5 mm and 14.25 mm. The stem extracts that exhibited a resistant interpretation were 0.1 g/ml, 0.2 g/ml and 0.4 g/ml with inhibition zones of 10.75 mm, 11.25 mm and 13.5 mm, respectively. Concentrations with Intermediate interpretation were 0.3 g/ml and 0.5 g/ml with inhibition zones of 14.15 mm and 15 mm. The 0.3 g/ml and 0.5 g/m1 leaf extract were interpreted as Resistant with inhibition zones of 13.75 mm and 6.75 mm. The Intermediate inhibition zones were 0.1 g/ml and 0.2 g/ml with inhibition zones of 14.5 mm and 15.75 mm. The 0.4 g/ml leaf extract was interpreted as Susceptible with an inhibition zone of 22.75 mm. On the other hand, the stem extracts with concentrations of 0.1 g/ml, 0.2 g/ml, 0.3 g/ml, 0.4 g/ml and 0.5 g/ml were interpreted as Resistant with inhibition zones of 10.5 mm, 9.75 mm, 9.75 mm, 9.5 mm and 9.25 mm, respectively. The plant part extracts that exhibited the highest zone of inhibition were subjected to Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC). The 0.2 g/ml leaf extract and 0.5 g/ml stem extract were evaluated for its minimum inhibitory concentration against S. aureus. On the other hand, 0.4 g/ml leaf extract and 0.1 g/ml stem extract were applied to E. coil in varying concentrations. The varying concentrations of 0.2 g/ml leaf extract, 0.5 g/ml leaf extract and 0.1 g/ml stem extract did not caused inhibition of bacterial growth while the 0.4 g/ml leaf extract inhibited bacterial growth.
541			_cSubmitted to the University Library _dJuly 16,2018 _eRS-823
650		0	_93620 _aHerbs _xTherapeutic use
650		0	_98770 _aAntibacterial agents
650		0	_98771 _aBacterial disease _xAlternative
690			_91856 _aBachelor of Science in Medical Technology
700			_98772 _aCandalo, Clarize Z. _eauthor
700			_94553 _aSangalang, Adelaida E. _eadviser
856			_uhttp://library.cvsu.edu.ph/cgi-bin/koha/opac-retrieve-file.pl?id=3968c4058f1ec98092866ffa94bbb212 _yClick here to view thesis abstract and table of contents
942			_2ddc _cMAN
999			_c34082 _d34082