You are on page 1of 5

Transmittance and Reflectance

According to Rashid Zia, 2017 he defined the transmittance is the measure of light transmitted by
a sample and is mathematically identified with absorbance. Reflectance measures the amount of light that
reflects from the surface of a sample. These measurements can be used to determine the chemical
structure and properties of surfaces and surface-adsorbed species. Absorbance, transmittance, and
reflectance measurements are typically made with monochromators (i.e., spectrographs that have an exit
slit and a single-point detector).

Transmission spectroscopy is very interrelated to Absorption Spectroscopy. This technique can be

used for gas, solid, liquid sampling. Here, light is passed through the sample and contrasted with light that
has not. The subsequent range of spectrum relies on the path length or sample thickness, the absorption
coefficient of the sample, the reflectivity of the sample, the angle of incidence, the polarization of the
incident radiation, and, for particulate matter, on molecule size and orientation. According to the law of
beer lambert the term IT/Io is called transmittance. This form of spectroscopy has a setup similar to the
one used for Absorption. Reflectance spectroscopy is the study of light as a component of wavelength that
has been reflected or scattered from a solid, liquid, or gas. As photons enter a mineral, some are reflected
from grain surfaces, some pass through the grain, and some are absorbed. Those photons that are reflected
from grain surfaces or refracted through a particle are said to be scattered. Scattered photons may
encounter another grain or be scattered away from the surface so they might be distinguished and
measured (Palit, Ghosh 2013).

Biochemical Test

To identify bacteria, we must rely heavily on biochemical testing. The types of biochemical
reactions each organism undergoes act as a thumbprint for its identification. Biochemical testing will
also show the results of the activity of those enzymes. To recognize microorganisms, we should depend
vigorously on biochemical testing. The sorts of biochemical responses every creature experiences go
about as a "thumbprint" for its distinguishing proof. Biochemical testing will likewise demonstrate the
consequences of the action of those chemicals. According to Samiksha S, 2016 biochemical tests are the
tests used for the identification of microscopic organisms species in view of the distinctions in the
biochemical activities of various microbes. The significance of biochemical test is the identification of
higher plants and animals includes the observations of the structural differences, both internal and
external, which exist among them. Most of these structural differences are visible to naked eye. Indeed,
even the identification of microscopic plants and animals includes the observations of their structural
differences under a microscope. Such identification based on structural differences is not possible in case
of bacteria, in light of the fact that basic contrasts, which may separate one types of microbes from the
other, are not discernible even under a microscope. The structural differences with respect to shape, size
and arrangement of bacteria only help in the process of identification, because there are numerous types
of microscopic organisms having comparable shape, size and game plan. Hence, eventually, the
identification of bacteria is mostly based on the differences in their biochemical activities.


Over 23000 microbial antibiotics are discovered today, the order Actinomycetales have been
isolated over 10000 species (Manivasagan et al., 2013). The most important prokaryotes in both
economically and biotechnologically as their ability to develop bioactive compound is successful from
any other group of organism are the Actinomycetes. They are the builder of the 45% of all invent active
natural products. The Streptomyces genus is the top producer of the compounds within the Actinomycetes
(Brdy, 2005).

The actinomycetes are soil bacteria that used to be seen only to terrestrial environments. The
actinomycete species recovered from marine sources were suggested to have come from terrestrial spores
washed out to sea. The first marine actinomycete genus discovered was Salinispora (Mincer et al., 2002,
2005), and the two first sea-water species found were Salinispora arenicola and Salinispora tropica
(Maldonado et al., 2005).

Aeromonas spp

Khan et al. (2009) found that both culture and qPCR-based detection methods enumerated higher
numbers of Aeromonas bacteria in interstitial pore water of foreshore sand than in adjacent surface water
at two freshwater beaches on Lake Ontario. Foreshore sand was found to serve as a reservoir for higher
numbers of aeromonads, similar to this phenomenon for FIB like E. coli. Khan et al. (2009) did not
specifically confirm the pathogenicity of any Aeromonas isolates recovered from beach sand, however
outbreaks of Aeromonas hydrophila have been attributed to recreational exposures to mud fields (Vally et
al. 2004).
Pseudomonas aeruginosa has been reported from beach sediments at Great Lakes beaches in
Ontario, Canada (Palmer 1988; Seyfried et al. 1985), as well as in beach sand at a subtropical marine
beach in Florida, U.S. (Esiobu et al. 2004) and from dry sand at South Carolina marine beaches (Stevens
et al. 2012). Ghinsberg et al. (1994) found P. aeruginosa at higher levels in beach sand than in beach water
along the Israeli coast. More than 103 P. aeruginosa CFU/g sand were measured at some beaches. Mendes
et al. (1993) commonly detected P. aeruginosa in beach sands at marine beaches in Portugal, and
concentrations were measured as high as 2.4 107 cells/g sand. P. aeruginosa was also commonly
detected in beach sand at beaches in the Azore Islands, reaching over 103 MPN/g sand (Mendes et al.
1997). Sanchez et al. (1986) detected P. aeruginosa commonly in beach sand at eight marine beaches in
Sao Paulo, Brazil, and numbers were much higher in the sand than adjacent beach water. Concentrations
exceeded 104/100 g, and numbers better correlated with total coliforms than FIB in sand. Elmanama et al.
(2005) detected Pseudomonas aeruginosa in almost all 130 sand samples analyzed from the swash zone at
marine beaches along the Israeli coast. They found P. aeruginosa concentrations as high as 900 CFU/100
g sand and considered the widespread occurrence of this microorganism as alarming. Mohammed et al.
(2012) suggested P. aeruginosa might be useful to assess sanitary conditions of beach sand in the absence
of ideal indicators of non-enteric health risks.

Numerous studies have shown that beach sandmay serve as a reservoir for pathogens harmful to
human health and indicatormicrobes that can be released into surrounding waters through tidal action or
run-off (Alm et al., 2003; Whitman and Nevers, 2003; Boehm and Weisberg, 2005; Beversdorf et al.,
2007; Colford et al., 2007; Fleisher et al., 2010; Ge et al., 2010; Sinigalliano et al., 2010; Abdelzaher et
al., 2010). Several authors have reported that both indicator bacteria and potential pathogens occur in
beach sands of both freshwater and marine environments (Sanchez et al., 1986; Ghinsberg et al., 1994,
1995; Obiri-Danso and Jones, 2000; Desmarais et al., 2002; Sato et al., 2005; Vantarakis et al., 2005;
Beversdorf et al., 2007; Bonilla et al., 2007; Vogel et al., 2007; Hartz et al., 2008; Abdelzaher et al.,
2010). In fact, bacterial cell numbers can be substantially higher in the sand than in nearbywaters; for
example in the Great Lakes region of the US, E. coli in sand can be found at levels of 10 to 100 times
higher than adjacentwaters, generally ranging from 103 to 104 CFU/g at an enclosed beach to 101.5 to
102.5 CFU/g at open beaches (Burton et al., 1987; Doyle et al., 1992; Irvine and Pettibone, 1993; Oshiro
and Fujioka, 1995; Whitman and Nevers, 2003; Yamahara et al., 2007). This phenomenon might be of
even greater concern in high-latitude regions where bathers spend more time on the beach itself than in
the water (WHO, 2003).


Brdy, J. (2005). Bioactive microbial metabolites. J. Antibiot. (Tokyo) 58, 126.

Maldonado, L.A., Fenical, W., Jensen, P.R., Kauffman, C.A., Mincer, T.J., Ward, A.C., Bull, A.T., and
Goodfellow, M. (2005a). Salinispora arenicola gen. nov., sp. nov. and Salinispora tropica sp. nov.,
obligate marine actinomycetes belonging to the family Micromonosporaceae. Int. J. Syst. Evol.
Microbiol. 55, 17591766.

Manivasagan, P., Venkatesan, J., Sivakumar, K., and Kim, S.-K. (2013). Marine actinobacterial
metabolites: Current status and future perspectives. Microbiol. Res.

Mincer, T.J., Jensen, P.R., Kauffman, C.A., and Fenical, W. (2002). Widespread and Persistent
Populations of a Major New Marine Actinomycete Taxon in Ocean Sediments. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
68, 50055011.

Mincer, T.J., Fenical, W., and Jensen, P.R. (2005). Culture-dependent and culture-independent diversity
within the obligate marine actinomycete genus Salinispora. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71, 70197028.

Palit, Ghosh (Probing Excited State Charge Transfer Dynamics in a Heteroleptic Ruthenium Complex
Rashid Zia - Brown University (Isoplane combines high-resolution spectra with near-diffraction-limited
image quality 2017)

Samiksha S (Importance of Biochemical Tests of Bacteria 2016)

Winn, W., S. Allen, W. Janda, E. Koneman, G. Procop, P. Schreckenberger, and G. Woods. Color atlas and
textbook of diagnostic microbiology, 6th ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA. 2006