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 *

102 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17998611)

  • 1. Combining targeted sampling and fluorometry to identify human fecal contamination in a freshwater creek.
    Hartel PG; Rodgers K; Moody GL; Hemmings SN; Fisher JA; McDonald JL
    J Water Health; 2008 Mar; 6(1):105-16. PubMed ID: 17998611
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Identifying sources of fecal contamination inexpensively with targeted sampling and bacterial source tracking.
    McDonald JL; Hartel PG; Gentit LC; Belcher CN; Gates KW; Rodgers K; Fisher JA; Smith KA; Payne KA
    J Environ Qual; 2006; 35(3):889-97. PubMed ID: 16641326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Exposing water samples to ultraviolet light improves fluorometry for detecting human fecal contamination.
    Hartel PG; Hagedorn C; McDonald JL; Fisher JA; Saluta MA; Dickerson JW; Gentit LC; Smith SL; Mantripragada NS; Ritter KJ; Belcher CN
    Water Res; 2007 Aug; 41(16):3629-42. PubMed ID: 17475305
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Evaluation of microbial source tracking methods using mixed fecal sources in aqueous test samples.
    Griffith JF; Weisberg SB; McGee CD
    J Water Health; 2003 Dec; 1(4):141-51. PubMed ID: 15382720
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Host species-specific metabolic fingerprint database for enterococci and Escherichia coli and its application to identify sources of fecal contamination in surface waters.
    Ahmed W; Neller R; Katouli M
    Appl Environ Microbiol; 2005 Aug; 71(8):4461-8. PubMed ID: 16085837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A comparative study of culture-independent, library-independent genotypic methods of fecal source tracking.
    Field KG; Chern EC; Dick LK; Fuhrman J; Griffith J; Holden PA; LaMontagne MG; Le J; Olson B; Simonich MT
    J Water Health; 2003 Dec; 1(4):181-94. PubMed ID: 15382723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Microbial source tracking in a rural watershed dominated by cattle.
    Graves AK; Hagedorn C; Brooks A; Hagedorn RL; Martin E
    Water Res; 2007 Aug; 41(16):3729-39. PubMed ID: 17582454
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Evaluation of host-specific Bacteroidales 16S rRNA gene markers as a complementary tool for detecting fecal pollution in a prairie watershed.
    Fremaux B; Gritzfeld J; Boa T; Yost CK
    Water Res; 2009 Nov; 43(19):4838-49. PubMed ID: 19604534
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Source specific fecal bacteria modeling using soil and water assessment tool model.
    Parajuli PB; Mankin KR; Barnes PL
    Bioresour Technol; 2009 Jan; 100(2):953-63. PubMed ID: 18703332
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Multiple lines of evidence to identify the sources of fecal pollution at a freshwater beach in Hamilton Harbour, Lake Ontario.
    Edge TA; Hill S
    Water Res; 2007 Aug; 41(16):3585-94. PubMed ID: 17575998
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Efficacy of Bacteroides measurements for reducing the statistical uncertainty associated with hydrologic flow and fecal loads in a mixed use watershed.
    Gentry RW; Layton AC; McKay LD; McCarthy JF; Williams DE; Koirala SR; Sayler GS
    J Environ Qual; 2007; 36(5):1324-30. PubMed ID: 17636294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Targeted sampling protocol as prelude to bacterial source tracking with Enterococcus faecalis.
    Kuntz RL; Hartel PG; Godfrey DG; McDonald JL; Gates KW; Segars WI
    J Environ Qual; 2003; 32(6):2311-8. PubMed ID: 14674555
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Confirmation of putative stormwater impact on water quality at a Florida beach by microbial source tracking methods and structure of indicator organism populations.
    Brownell MJ; Harwood VJ; Kurz RC; McQuaig SM; Lukasik J; Scott TM
    Water Res; 2007 Aug; 41(16):3747-57. PubMed ID: 17544051
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Diurnal variability in concentrations and sources of Escherichia coli in three streams.
    Meays CL; Broersma K; Nordin R; Mazumder A; Samadpour M
    Can J Microbiol; 2006 Nov; 52(11):1130-5. PubMed ID: 17215905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparing wastewater chemicals, indicator bacteria concentrations, and bacterial pathogen genes as fecal pollution indicators.
    Haack SK; Duris JW; Fogarty LR; Kolpin DW; Focazio MJ; Furlong ET; Meyer MT
    J Environ Qual; 2009; 38(1):248-58. PubMed ID: 19141815
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Use of viral pathogens and indicators to differentiate between human and non-human fecal contamination in a microbial source tracking comparison study.
    Noble RT; Allen SM; Blackwood AD; Chu W; Jiang SC; Lovelace GL; Sobsey MD; Stewart JR; Wait DA
    J Water Health; 2003 Dec; 1(4):195-207. PubMed ID: 15382724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Identifying human and livestock sources of fecal contamination in Kenya with host-specific Bacteroidales assays.
    Jenkins MW; Tiwari S; Lorente M; Gichaba CM; Wuertz S
    Water Res; 2009 Nov; 43(19):4956-66. PubMed ID: 19692107
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Fecal source tracking, the indicator paradigm, and managing water quality.
    Field KG; Samadpour M
    Water Res; 2007 Aug; 41(16):3517-38. PubMed ID: 17643471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Locating Escherichia coli contamination in a rural South Carolina watershed.
    Kloot RW
    J Environ Manage; 2007 Jun; 83(4):402-8. PubMed ID: 16814453
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Microbial water quality and influences of fecal accumulation from a dog exercise area.
    Garfield L; Walker M
    J Environ Health; 2008 Nov; 71(4):24-9. PubMed ID: 19004392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.