184 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16784791)
1. Determining the microbiological criteria for lot rejection from the performance objective or food safety objective.
Whiting RC; Rainosek A; Buchanan RL; Miliotis M; Labarre D; Long W; Ruple A; Schaub S
Int J Food Microbiol; 2006 Aug; 110(3):263-7. PubMed ID: 16784791
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. [Sampling plans in microbiological criteria for food and their "performance criteria"].
Dahms S; Hildebrandt G; Weiss H; Arndt G
Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr; 2001; 114(11-12):465-9. PubMed ID: 11766275
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. [Sampling plans and microbiological criteria as risk management options in recently developed food safety concerns].
Dahms S
Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr; 2004; 117(5-6):193-200. PubMed ID: 15188678
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A Microbial Assessment Scheme to measure microbial performance of Food Safety Management Systems.
Jacxsens L; Kussaga J; Luning PA; Van der Spiegel M; Devlieghere F; Uyttendaele M
Int J Food Microbiol; 2009 Aug; 134(1-2):113-25. PubMed ID: 19327860
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. [Quantitative microbiological analysis--impacting factors as demonstrated with the aerobic plate count].
Fries R
Dtsch Tierarztl Wochenschr; 2004 May; 111(5):188-92. PubMed ID: 15233336
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Street foods in Accra, Ghana: how safe are they?
Mensah P; Yeboah-Manu D; Owusu-Darko K; Ablordey A
Bull World Health Organ; 2002; 80(7):546-54. PubMed ID: 12163918
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Measurement uncertainty of the EU methods for microbiological examination of red meat.
Corry JE; Hedges AJ; Jarvis B
Food Microbiol; 2007 Sep; 24(6):652-7. PubMed ID: 17418317
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Studying the effects of POs and MCs on the Salmonella ALOP with a quantitative risk assessment model for beef production.
Tuominen P; Ranta J; Maijala R
Int J Food Microbiol; 2007 Aug; 118(1):35-51. PubMed ID: 17658191
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Validation of NMKL method No. 136--Listeria monocytogenes, detection and enumeration in foods and feed.
Loncarevic S; Økland M; Sehic E; Norli HS; Johansson T
Int J Food Microbiol; 2008 May; 124(2):154-63. PubMed ID: 18472176
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The effect of the number of sample units tested on the precision of microbial colony counts.
Jarvis B; Hedges AJ
Food Microbiol; 2011 Sep; 28(6):1211-9. PubMed ID: 21645822
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Microbiological hazard identification and exposure assessment of food prepared and served in rural households of Lungwena, Malawi.
Taulo S; Wetlesen A; Abrahamsen R; Kululanga G; Mkakosya R; Grimason A
Int J Food Microbiol; 2008 Jul; 125(2):111-6. PubMed ID: 18558451
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Assessment of measurement uncertainty for quantitative methods of analysis: comparative assessment of the precision (uncertainty) of bacterial colony counts.
Jarvis B; Hedges AJ; Corry JE
Int J Food Microbiol; 2007 May; 116(1):44-51. PubMed ID: 17316860
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A critical review of measurement uncertainty in the enumeration of food micro-organisms.
Corry JE; Jarvis B; Passmore S; Hedges A
Food Microbiol; 2007 May; 24(3):230-53. PubMed ID: 17188202
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Lessons from the organization of a proficiency testing program in food microbiology by interlaboratory comparison: analytical methods in use, impact of methods on bacterial counts and measurement uncertainty of bacterial counts.
Augustin JC; Carlier V
Food Microbiol; 2006 Feb; 23(1):1-38. PubMed ID: 16942983
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Quantitative risk assessment of Campylobacter spp. in poultry based meat preparations as one of the factors to support the development of risk-based microbiological criteria in Belgium.
Uyttendaele M; Baert K; Ghafir Y; Daube G; De Zutter L; Herman L; Dierick K; Pierard D; Dubois JJ; Horion B; Debevere J
Int J Food Microbiol; 2006 Sep; 111(2):149-63. PubMed ID: 16876277
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Safety and nutritional assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed: the role of animal feeding trials.
EFSA GMO Panel Working Group on Animal Feeding Trials
Food Chem Toxicol; 2008 Mar; 46 Suppl 1():S2-70. PubMed ID: 18328408
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Non-lactic acid, contaminating microbial flora in ready-to-eat foods: a potential food-quality index.
Angelidis AS; Chronis EN; Papageorgiou DK; Kazakis II; Arsenoglou KC; Stathopoulos GA
Food Microbiol; 2006 Feb; 23(1):95-100. PubMed ID: 16942992
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Processing practices contributing to Campylobacter contamination in Belgian chicken meat preparations.
Sampers I; Habib I; Berkvens D; Dumoulin A; Zutter LD; Uyttendaele M
Int J Food Microbiol; 2008 Dec; 128(2):297-303. PubMed ID: 18947895
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A rapid and reliable alternative to ISO 21528-1:2004 for detection of Enterobacteriaceae.
Joosten H; Marugg J; Stephan R; Klijn A; Jackson T; Iversen C
Int J Food Microbiol; 2008 Jul; 125(3):344-6. PubMed ID: 18547668
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
