Biology Lab Report

Fig. 1. Various nuclear changes of erythrocyte in the blood smears of fish treated with sub-lethal concentrations of profenofos such as (a) control (regular cell), (b) micronucleus, (c) bi-nucleus, (d) degenerated nucleus, (e) notched nucleus, (f) nuclear bridge, and (g) nuclear bud. Two groups of fish were exposed to 10% and 50% of LC50 of profenofos for 7, 15, and 30 days, while third group treated as control (0% profenofos). Three slides were prepared for each fish and 2000 cells were scored from each slide and at least five fish analyzed in each group. Giemsa stain: 100X

Fig. 2. Variations of the average number of all ENAs in the silver barb exposed to sub-lethal concentrations (10% and 50% of LC50) of profenofos and respective controls at each period of exposure (7, 15, and 30 days) and recovery in freshwater for similar intervals. Data represents …show more content…
3. Variations of the average number of all ECAs in the silver barb exposed to sub-lethal concentrations (10% and 50% of LC50) of profenofos and respective controls at each period of exposure (7, 15, and 30 days) and recovery in freshwater for similar intervals. Data represents mean  SD (n = 6). Cont –control, Expo – exposure, Recov – recovery

Fig. 4. Various cellular changes of erythrocytes in the blood smears of fish treated with sub-lethal concentrations of profenofos such as (a) echinocytic, (b) elongated, (c) fusion, (d) spindle, (e) tear-drop and (f) twin shaped. Two groups of fish were exposed to 10% and 50% of LC50 of profenofos for 7, 15, and 30 days, while third group treated as control (% profenofos). Three slides were prepared for each fish and 2000 cells were scored from each slide and at least five fish analyzed in each group. Giemsa stain: 100X

Fig. 5. Variations of the mean recovery rate of all ENAs (a) and ECAs (b) in the silver barb exposed to two sub-lethal concentrations (10% and 50% of LC50) of profenofos at each period of exposure (7, 15, and 30 days). Data represent mean  SD (n =