These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

136 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15690801)

  • 1. An evaluation of sampling methods for the detection of Escherichia coli and Salmonella on Turkey carcasses.
    McEvoy JM; Nde CW; Sherwood JS; Logue CM
    J Food Prot; 2005 Jan; 68(1):34-9. PubMed ID: 15690801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Experimental comparison of excision and swabbing microbiological sampling methods for carcasses.
    Pepperell R; Reid CA; Solano SN; Hutchison ML; Walters LD; Johnston AM; Buncic S
    J Food Prot; 2005 Oct; 68(10):2163-8. PubMed ID: 16245724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Microbiological sampling of swine carcasses: a comparison of data obtained by swabbing with medical gauze and data collected routinely by excision at Swedish abattoirs.
    Lindblad M
    Int J Food Microbiol; 2007 Sep; 118(2):180-5. PubMed ID: 17706823
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Microbiological sampling of poultry carcass portions by excision, rinsing, or swabbing.
    Gill CO; Badoni M; Moza LF; Barbut S; Griffiths MW
    J Food Prot; 2005 Dec; 68(12):2718-20. PubMed ID: 16355849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Numbers of Salmonella recovered by sponge or low volume whole carcass rinse sampling of inoculated commercial turkey carcasses.
    Smith DP
    Poult Sci; 2012 Aug; 91(8):2017-21. PubMed ID: 22802199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparison of sampling methods for microbiological testing of beef animal rectal/colonal feces, hides, and carcasses.
    Ransom JR; Belk KE; Bacon RT; Sofos JN; Scanga JA; Smith GC
    J Food Prot; 2002 Apr; 65(4):621-6. PubMed ID: 11952210
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparison of neck skin excision and whole carcass rinse sampling methods for microbiological evaluation of broiler carcasses before and after immersion chilling.
    Cox NA; Richardson LJ; Cason JA; Buhr RJ; Vizzier-Thaxton Y; Smith DP; Fedorka-Cray PJ; Romanenghi CP; Pereira LV; Doyle MP
    J Food Prot; 2010 May; 73(5):976-80. PubMed ID: 20501052
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparison of swabbing and destructive methods for microbiological pig carcass sampling.
    Ghafir Y; Daube G
    Lett Appl Microbiol; 2008 Oct; 47(4):322-6. PubMed ID: 19241527
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Microbiological sampling of carcasses by excision or swabbing.
    Gill CO; Jones T
    J Food Prot; 2000 Feb; 63(2):167-73. PubMed ID: 10678419
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. An in vitro system for the comparison of excision and wet-dry swabbing for microbiological sampling of beef carcasses.
    Cenci-Goga BT; Miraglia D; Ranucci D; Branciari R; Budelli L; McCrindle CM; Cioffi A; Mammoli R
    J Food Prot; 2007 Apr; 70(4):930-6. PubMed ID: 17477263
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Evaluation of three sampling methods for the microbiological analysis of broiler carcasses after immersion chilling.
    Giombelli A; Cavani R; Gloria MB
    J Food Prot; 2013 Aug; 76(8):1330-5. PubMed ID: 23905787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A comparison of swab and maceration methods for bacterial sampling of pig carcasses.
    Morgan IR; Krautil F; Craven JA
    J Hyg (Lond); 1985 Oct; 95(2):383-90. PubMed ID: 3905957
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Effect of fecal contamination and cross-contamination on numbers of coliform, Escherichia coli, Campylobacter, and Salmonella on immersion-chilled broiler carcasses.
    Smith DP; Cason JA; Berrang ME
    J Food Prot; 2005 Jul; 68(7):1340-5. PubMed ID: 16013368
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. One-year (2003) nationwide pork carcass microbiological baseline data survey in Taiwan.
    Yeh KS; Chen SP; Lin JH
    J Food Prot; 2005 Mar; 68(3):458-61. PubMed ID: 15771166
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Prevalence and risk factors for Salmonella and Campylobacter spp. carcass contamination in turkeys slaughtered in Quebec, Canada.
    Arsenault J; Letellier A; Quessy S; Morin JP; Boulianne M
    J Food Prot; 2007 Jun; 70(6):1350-9. PubMed ID: 17612063
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Hygiene indicator microorganisms for selected pathogens on beef, pork, and poultry meats in Belgium.
    Ghafir Y; China B; Dierick K; De Zutter L; Daube G
    J Food Prot; 2008 Jan; 71(1):35-45. PubMed ID: 18236660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Destructive and nondestructive procedures to obtain chicken carcass samples for Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. detection.
    Cossi MV; de Almeida MV; Dias MR; de Arruda Pinto PS; Nero LA
    Foodborne Pathog Dis; 2011 Dec; 8(12):1303-7. PubMed ID: 21854266
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A survey of the microbiological quality of feral pig carcasses processed for human consumption in Queensland, Australia.
    Eglezos S; Stuttard E; Huang B; Dykes GA; Fegan N
    Foodborne Pathog Dis; 2008 Feb; 5(1):105-9. PubMed ID: 18260821
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Effects of experience with swabbing procedures on the numbers of bacteria recovered from carcasses by swabbing with sponges.
    Gill CO; Badoni M
    J Food Prot; 2010 Apr; 73(4):747-51. PubMed ID: 20377966
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Location of bung bagging during beef slaughter influences the potential for spreading pathogen contamination on beef carcasses.
    Stopforth JD; Lopes M; Shultz JE; Miksch RR; Samadpour M
    J Food Prot; 2006 Jun; 69(6):1452-5. PubMed ID: 16786873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.