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 *

341 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23522681)

  • 1. Computer simulation of energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and process economics of the fluid milk process.
    Tomasula PM; Yee WC; McAloon AJ; Nutter DW; Bonnaillie LM
    J Dairy Sci; 2013 May; 96(5):3350-68. PubMed ID: 23522681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Computer simulation of energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and costs for alternative methods of processing fluid milk.
    Tomasula PM; Datta N; Yee WC; McAloon AJ; Nutter DW; Sampedro F; Bonnaillie LM
    J Dairy Sci; 2014 Jul; 97(7):4594-611. PubMed ID: 24792792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Carbon footprint of Canadian dairy products: calculations and issues.
    Vergé XP; Maxime D; Dyer JA; Desjardins RL; Arcand Y; Vanderzaag A
    J Dairy Sci; 2013 Sep; 96(9):6091-104. PubMed ID: 23831091
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Carbon footprint of dairy goat milk production in New Zealand.
    Robertson K; Symes W; Garnham M
    J Dairy Sci; 2015 Jul; 98(7):4279-93. PubMed ID: 25981064
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Carbon footprint and ammonia emissions of California beef production systems.
    Stackhouse-Lawson KR; Rotz CA; Oltjen JW; Mitloehner FM
    J Anim Sci; 2012 Dec; 90(12):4641-55. PubMed ID: 22952361
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas analysis of a large-scale vertically integrated organic dairy in the United States.
    Heller MC; Keoleian GA
    Environ Sci Technol; 2011 Mar; 45(5):1903-10. PubMed ID: 21348530
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The carbon footprint of behavioural support services for smoking cessation.
    Smith AJ; Tennison I; Roberts I; Cairns J; Free C
    Tob Control; 2013 Sep; 22(5):302-7. PubMed ID: 23481905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions for an ethanol production process based on blue-green algae.
    Luo D; Hu Z; Choi DG; Thomas VM; Realff MJ; Chance RR
    Environ Sci Technol; 2010 Nov; 44(22):8670-7. PubMed ID: 20968295
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in the production of fluid milk.
    Tomasula PM; Nutter DW
    Adv Food Nutr Res; 2011; 62():41-88. PubMed ID: 21504821
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. CO2 abatement costs of greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation by different biogas conversion pathways.
    Rehl T; Müller J
    J Environ Manage; 2013 Jan; 114():13-25. PubMed ID: 23201601
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The carbon footprint of dairy production systems through partial life cycle assessment.
    Rotz CA; Montes F; Chianese DS
    J Dairy Sci; 2010 Mar; 93(3):1266-82. PubMed ID: 20172247
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Impact of process design on greenhouse gas (GHG) generation by wastewater treatment plants.
    Bani Shahabadi M; Yerushalmi L; Haghighat F
    Water Res; 2009 Jun; 43(10):2679-87. PubMed ID: 19375775
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Greenhouse gas production in wastewater treatment: process selection is the major factor.
    Keller J; Hartley K
    Water Sci Technol; 2003; 47(12):43-8. PubMed ID: 12926668
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Trends in greenhouse gas emissions from consumption and production of animal food products - implications for long-term climate targets.
    Cederberg C; Hedenus F; Wirsenius S; Sonesson U
    Animal; 2013 Feb; 7(2):330-40. PubMed ID: 23031741
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Growth-promoting technologies decrease the carbon footprint, ammonia emissions, and costs of California beef production systems.
    Stackhouse KR; Rotz CA; Oltjen JW; Mitloehner FM
    J Anim Sci; 2012 Dec; 90(12):4656-65. PubMed ID: 22952364
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Potential for improving the carbon footprint of butter and blend products.
    Flysjö A
    J Dairy Sci; 2011 Dec; 94(12):5833-41. PubMed ID: 22118073
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Uncertainty analysis of life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from petroleum-based fuels and impacts on low carbon fuel policies.
    Venkatesh A; Jaramillo P; Griffin WM; Matthews HS
    Environ Sci Technol; 2011 Jan; 45(1):125-31. PubMed ID: 21043516
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Urban and country level greenhouse gas emissions and carbon footprints: A comparative study of a megacity, Delhi and India.
    Ganga S; Gurjar BR; Kumari R
    J Environ Sci Eng; 2011 Apr; 53(2):137-42. PubMed ID: 23033695
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Greenhouse gas emission reduction and environmental quality improvement from implementation of aerobic waste treatment systems in swine farms.
    Vanotti MB; Szogi AA; Vives CA
    Waste Manag; 2008; 28(4):759-66. PubMed ID: 18060761
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Reducing U.S. residential energy use and CO2 emissions: how much, how soon, and at what cost?
    Lima Azevedo I; Morgan MG; Palmer K; Lave LB
    Environ Sci Technol; 2013 Mar; 47(6):2502-11. PubMed ID: 23398047
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 18.