G activity60 60 40 40 20 20125 g/mL 250 g/mL 125 g/mL500 g/mL 1000g
G activity60 60 40 40 20 20125 g/mL 250 g/mL 125 g/mL500 g/mL 1000g/mL 250 g/mL 500 g/TP-064 Purity & Documentation mLFish oil Ascorbic acid 0 Fish radical scavenging activity of Peters’ elephant-nose fish oil. Ascorbic acid Figure 4. Superoxide oil Figure 4. Superoxide radical scavenging activity of Peters’ elephant-nose fish oil.two.6. four. Superoxide radical scavenging activity of Peters’ elephant-nose fish oil. FigureWound Healing Activity2.6. Wound Healing Activity Estimation two.6.1. Wound Closure Price two.six.1. Wound Closure Price Metalaxyl In Vivo processes, two.6. Wound Healing Activity Estimation the excisional wounds on days 0, three, 7, 10, and 14 postIn response to woundwounding had been detected in all tested groups (group 1: untreated group good manage, two.six.1.In response to woundEstimation the excisional wounds on days 0, 3, 7, 10, and 14 Wound Closure Rate processes, group two: Peters’ elephant-nose fish oil groups (group 1: untreated group optimistic conMebo group), post-wounding were detected in all testedtreated group, group 3:days 0, -treatedand 14 In response to wound processes, the excisional wounds on three, 7, 10, Figure five. trol, group 2: Peters’ elephant-nose fish oilgroups (group 1: untreated group good contreated group, group three: Mebo-treated group), post-wounding were detected in all tested Results showed that no apparent difference in wound closure rate was observed Figure five. trol, group two: Peters’ elephant-nose rd oil treated group, group three: Mebo-treated group), fish among allshowed that no apparentday. On theinth day post-injury, the wound closure in Final results tested groups around the three difference 7 wound closure rate was observed beFigure five. the fish tested groups on 29 , which appeared to post-injury, the wound 0.05) than was (p closure in tween alloil treated group nothe 3rd day. On the 7th daybe substantially greater observed beResults showed that apparent difference in wound closure price was the corresponding untreated 29 , which appeared tofish drastically higher (p showed group. Also, the be oil treated group also 0.05) the fish oil treated group was tween all tested groups around the 3rd day. On the 7th day post-injury, the wound closure in improved wound closure prices in comparison addition, the fish oil treated group 0.05). than the corresponding was 29 , group. In to the Mebo -treated group (23 ) (p also the fish oil treated group untreated which appeared to become substantially higher (p 0.05) The wound closure prices on the fish oil treated group (76 ) were once again significantly showed corresponding untreated group. Moreover, the Mebotreated grouphigher than theimproved wound closure prices in comparison tothe fish oil-treated group (23 ) also (p 0.05). than the untreated group (58 ) on the 10th day post-injury. On 14th day post(p 0.05)The wound closure prices of the fish oil treated group (76 ) have been again signifi-treated group (23 ) showed the wounds in fish closure rates in comparison to thehealed along with the wound closure Mebo injury, improved wound oil th th cantly greater (p 0.05)closure treated group had been totally (preached one hundred and 90 in fishuntreated fish oil(58 ) Mebo0(76 ) post-injury. signifi 0.05). The wound than the oil of your group treated group day were once more On 14 rates treated group and around the -treated group, respectively, day post-injury, 0.05) than the untreated group group have been absolutely healed On the cantly greater (p the wounds in fish oil treated (58 ) on the 10th day post-injury.and 14th Figure six. day post-injury, the wounds in fish oil.
