ArticleApplied and environmental microbiology2013
Rapid sample processing for detection of food-borne pathogens via cross-flow microfiltration.
Article in Applied and environmental microbiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- An Integrated System Combining Filter-Assisted Sample Preparation and Colorimetric Biosensing for Rapid Pathogen Detection in Complex Food Matrices.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- A streamlined procedure for advancing the detection and isolation ofMicrobiology spectrum · 2025Article
- Recent advancements in microfluidic chip biosensor detection of foodborne pathogenic bacteria: a review.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2022Review
- Antibody- and nucleic acid-based lateral flow immunoassay for Listeria monocytogenes detection.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2021Review
- Article
- Microfluidic-Based Approaches for Foodborne Pathogen Detection.Microorganisms · 2019Review
- Current Technical Approaches for the Early Detection of Foodborne Pathogens: Challenges and Opportunities.International journal of molecular sciences · 2017Review
- Detection of Salmonella enterica in Meat in Less than 5 Hours by a Low-Cost and Noncomplex Sample Preparation Method.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2017Article
- Recent and emerging innovations in Salmonella detection: a food and environmental perspective.Microbial biotechnology · 2016Review
- Antibody Microarray for E. coli O157:H7 and Shiga Toxin in Microtiter Plates.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper reports an approach to enable rapid concentration and recovery of bacterial cells from aqueous chicken homogenates as a preanalytical step of detection. This approach includes biochemical pretreatment and prefiltration of food samples and development of an automated cell concentration instrument based on cross-flow microfiltration. A polysulfone hollow-fiber membrane module having a nominal pore size of 0.2 μm constitutes the core of the cell concentration instrument. The aqueous chicken homogenate samples were circulated within the cross-flow system achieving 500- to 1,000-fold concentration of inoculated Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis and naturally occurring microbiota with 70% recovery of viable cells as determined by plate counting and quantitative PCR (qPCR) within 35 to 45 min. These steps enabled 10 CFU/ml microorganisms in chicken homogenates or 10(2) CFU/g chicken to be quantified. Cleaning and sterilizing the instrument and membrane module by stepwise hydraulic and chemical cleaning (sodium hydroxide and ethanol) enabled reuse of the membrane 15 times before replacement. This approach begins to address the critical need for the food industry for detecting food pathogens within 6 h or less.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.