Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37576440›Full record

ArticleBiomicrofluidics2023

Continuous separation of bacterial cells from large debris using a spiral microfluidic device.

Ayomikun Esan, Frédérique Vanholsbeeck, Simon Swift, Cushla M McGoverin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biomicrofluidics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Simon SwiftDepartment of Molecular Medicine and Pathology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7352-1112

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the global increase in food exchange, rapid identification and enumeration of bacteria has become crucial for protecting consumers from bacterial contamination. Efficient analysis requires the separation of target particles (e.g., bacterial cells) from food and/or sampling matrices to prevent matrix interference with the detection and analysis of target cells. However, studies on the separation of bacteria-sized particles and defined particles, such as bacterial cells, from heterogeneous debris, such as meat swab suspensions, are limited. In this study, we explore the use of passive-based inertial microfluidics to separate bacterial cells from debris, such as fascia, muscle tissues, and cotton fibers, extracted from ground meat and meat swabs-a novel approach demonstrated for the first time. Our objective is to evaluate the recovery efficiency of bacterial cells from large debris obtained from ground meat and meat swab suspensions using a spiral microfluidic device. In this study, we establish the optimal flow rates and Dean number for continuous bacterial cell and debris separation and a methodology to determine the percentage of debris removed from the sample suspension. Our findings demonstrate an average recovery efficiency of

Identifiers

PMID37576440
PMCPMC10415021

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.