Mucor Hiemalis

Good Essays
Mucor hiemalis showed high resistance to (Zn, Al) (Table, 37 & Fig. 46). The most interesting, high concentrations of zinc stimulated the growth better than low concentrations (Table 37), Aluminum could stimulate the growth of the fungus slightly in concentrations 100 ppm and 300 ppm respectively. Lower and higher concentrations slightly inhibited the growth but aluminum couldn’t stop the growth of the fungus (Table 37, Fig. 46). While (Mn , Cu and Pb) succeeded to stimulate the growth of Mucor hiemalis up to 100 ppm with variable extent of growth, but higher concentration completely prevented the growth (Table 37, Fig. 46). Nickel stimulated the growth of the fungus irregularly with concentration 1 ppm - 100 ppm and the best growth was recorded …show more content…
chrysogenum as adsorbent for heavy metals. P. chrysogenoum is highly effective for removal of heavy metals (Cd, Zn, Cu and Pb) in wastes (kowronski et al., 2001) or in polluted soil (Deng et al., 2012). Culture feeding with different concentration of (Mn, Cu, Fe) showed variable sensitivity in growth rate (Table 39, Fig. 49), it was noticed that high concentrations (500 ppm and 1000 ppm) delayed the growth up to 5 days whereas the fungus treated with 500 ppm start to grow at the day 6 and those treated with 1000 ppm start to grow at the 7 day but very slowly growth. P. duclauxii recorded high resistance against different concentrations of (Zn, Pb, Ni, Al) up to 1000 ppm (Table 39, Fig. 49). High concentration 1000 ppm of (Mn, Zn, Ni, Al) couldn’t stopped Penicillium italicum growth (Table 40, Fig. 50). The fungus pigmentation was low or not detected comparing with that of control with different concentration of Zn (Fig. 51). Microscopical examination of this fungus fed with different concentrations of zinc investigated variable sporulation comparing with that of control (Fig. 52). Copper slightly stimulated the growth in concentrations 30 ppm-100 ppm while other concentrations inhibited Penicillium italicum growth and 1000 ppm delayed the fungus growth to 6th day but with a slowly rate (Table 40, Fig.

Related Documents

  • Good Essays

    The Varroa Destructor

    • 277 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Varroa destructor (Anderson and Trueman, 2000) is an obligatory ectoparasite of the honeybee (Apis mellifera L). It caused severe damage to populations of this species world-wide in recent years (Le Conte et al., 2010). The direct negative effect of the Varroa on honeybee has well documented (Weinberg and Madel, 1985; Daly et al., 1988, Wienands and Madel, 1988; Marcangeli et al., 1992; Bowen-Walker and Gunn, 2001; Contzen et al., 2004; Yang and Cox-Foster, 2005; Belaïd and Doumandji, 2010; Belaïd…

    • 277 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays