Extraction results are exhibited in Table 1. Table 1 – R.mucronata leaf extraction results with 3 different solvents Solvent Extract Weight (g) Extract Immersion (%) n-Heksan 7.07±0.25 0.71 Etil Asetat 37.51±0.45 3.803 Methanol 18.47±0.71 1.91 Antibacterial Activity Test on R.mucronata Leaf Extract. The antibacterial activity test on the crude extract of R.mucronata leaves to A.hydrophyla aims to determine the antibacterial activity possessed by the three extracts. The soluble compound in the methanol solvent and ethyl acetate exhibited the presence of antibacterial activity with the formation of the inhibitory zone, whereas in the n-hexane solvent there was no inhibition zone. The result of antibacterial activity test on the crude extract of R.mucronata leaf is exhibited in Figure 1. Figure 1 – Results of antibacterial activity test crude extract of R.mucronata leaf The diameter of the inhibition zone formed from the antibacterial activity test of the crude extract of R.mucronata was 6.5 ± 0.58 mm (1000 ppm extract with methanol solvent),
2.7 ± 0.84 (1000 ppm extract zone diameter was conducted zone diameter within 48 hour This indicates that the an bacteriostatic (Dwijoseputro, 1 a crude extract of R.mucron solvent has the greatest inh antibacterial compound A.hyd Crude extract and meth 15 g of crude extract were sep Figure 2 – Graph of w The methanol fraction e between antibacterial activity results exhibited that the me compared to the crude ext antibacterial bacteriostatic pro concentration of 1000 ppm is fraction extract of 6.9 mm at a leaf possesses moderate re (Table 2). Table 2 – Classificati Inhibiting diameter (m ≥ 20 10-20 5-10 ≤ 5 In contrast, antibacteria performed by Gurudeeban, et mm). The resistance to A. hyd be caused by both bacteria S.aureus is gram-positive. Th of the simpler gram making difficult to destroy by bioactive RJOAS, 1(73), January 2018 190 with ethyl acetate solvent). Observation on d for 3x24 hours. Research result exhibited rs and 72 hours on both extracts and at ev ntibacterial activity possessed by R.muc 1987, Schlegel and Schmidt, 1994). Antibact nata leaves exhibited that the extract prod hibition zone compared to the others. This drophyla is a polar compound. hanol solvent were purified utilizing separatin parated. Extract fraction is shown in Figure 2 weight extract fraction from separated funnel meth extract was tested for antibacterial to determ y possessed and crude methanol extract so ethanol fraction extract had a larger inhibit tract. Nevertheless, both types of extract operty. Comparison of two extract inhibitory exhibited in Figure 3. The inhibit zone was fo a concentration of 1000 ppm. It indicates tha esistance to A.hydrophyla according to G ion of inhibiting responses according to Greenwoo mm) Inhibiting Power C Very strong Strong Medium Weak al test results of R.mucronata against Stap t al., (2013) exhibited strong antibacterial ac drophyla growth is lower compared to S.aure a types. A.hydrophyla is a gram-negative he complexity of the gram-negative structure the cell wall structure of gram-negative s e compounds (Sari et al 2010).
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 198 pages?