ArticleJournal of industrial microbiology & biotechnology2003
Detection of bacterial contamination in starch and resin-based papermaking chemicals using fluorescence techniques.
Article in Journal of industrial microbiology & biotechnology, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rapid fluorescence techniques were evaluated for the detection of bacterial contaminants in papermaking chemicals including starch and the resin-based sizes and starch slurries used in the paper industry. Viable and non-viable bacterial cells were visualised by fluorescent probes and detected by epifluorescence microscopy and flow cytometry. The best discrimination ability was obtained with the fluorescent probes LIVE/DEAD and SYBR Green, based on the staining of cellular nucleic acid, and ChemChrome V3, which demonstrated cellular enzymatic activity. The process samples had to be diluted and filtered before fluorescence staining and analysis because they were viscous and contained solid particles. Fluorescence microscopic counts of bacteria in highly contaminated process samples were similar to plate counts, but flow cytometric enumeration of bacterial cells in process samples yielded 2- to 10-fold lower counts compared with plate counts, depending on the consistency of the sample. The detection limits in flow cytometric analysis and in epifluorescence microscopy were 10(3)-10(6) cells ml(-1) and 10(5)-10(6) cells ml(-1), respectively. Intrinsic bacterial contamination was detectable with fluorescence techniques and highly contaminated process samples could be analysed with fluorescence methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
12720090What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.