## 3 Results and Discussion
### Applied Power Impact  
A similar trend to in the case of the exposure time is also valid for the impact of the power used for the treatment. The results shown in Figures 3-5 demonstrate that the power of 12 W is more effective than 9 W, since by applying the greater power, bigger inhibition zones were created at all concentrations. The statistical analysis of the obtained inhibition zone sizes is presented in Table 1. All data are based on the mean \(\pm\) standard deviation (n = 6) and different letter(s) A-F represent points that are statistically different (\(p<0.05\)). Inhibition zones created using 12 W were twice as big as the ones created by 9 W, so we can state that the power of 12 W has double the impact on the inhibition of _Candida glabrata_ compared to 9 W. From the measured inhibition zone sizes, one may conclude that for the creation of an inhibition zone of the same size, it is possible to use 12 W and reduce the exposure time to half compared to 9 W (Figure 6). For example (see Figure 4), to create the zone with the size of 1 cm\({}^{2}\), in the case of the 10-fold dilution, the power of 9 W had to be applied for 1 min, but by using the power of 12 W, the exposure time was reduced to 30 s. Another example might be the original concentration and the zone of 0.75 cm\({}^{2}\) (see Figure 3). For the creation of this zone, the exposure time had to be 2 min when using 9 W, but the zone of the same size was reached just after 1 min using the power of 12 W. This trend also fits to all concentrations. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Time of**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**100-Fold Diluted Culture**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**100-Fold Diluted Culture**} \\ \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Application [s]**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Un**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**12 W**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**9 W**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**12 W**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**9 W**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**12 W**} \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{9} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} \\ \hline Incubation & 24 h & 48 h & 24 h & 48 h & 24 h & 48 h & 24 h & 48 h & 48 h & 48 h \\
15 & A & A & B & B & A & A & A, B & A, B & A & B \\
30 & B & B & C & C & B & B & C, D & C & B & B, C \\
60 & C & B, C & D, E & D & C, D & C & D & C, D & C, D & C \\
120 & D & D & E &It can also be noticed that the sizes of the inhibition zones decreased after 48 h, which was due to the recolonization of the zones (Figure 7). After the application of 9 W, a greater reduction in the inhibition zones was observed than in the case of the power of 12 W (see Figure 8). Thus, another advantage of using 12 W is a longer stability of the inhibition zones. The overgrowth of the inhibition zones was due to the colonization of surrounding cells or incomplete inhibition of yeast cells at the edges of the zones. The regrowth was observed mainly in the peripheral regions of the inhibition zones, and therefore, we conclude that the interior of the zone was sufficiently inhibited, thanks to which the re-occurrence of the colonies inside the inhibition zones was very rarely observed. Paradoxically, the largest inhibition zones had overgrown more intensively after 48 h than the smaller zones. An exception was the power of 12 W applied for 5 min to the 10-fold dilution, where the largest inhibition zone in the experiment was measured (see Figure 9). However, our aim was to keep the treatment time and power as short and low as possible; therefore, we did not perform further experiments for longer times under different conditions. Figure 6: Comparison of exposure times needed for the creation of the same zone size when using 120 s at 9 W (**left**) or 60 s at 12 W (**right**) in the case of the 10-fold dilution after the 24 h cultivation.