ArticleBiomicrofluidics2023
Continuous separation of bacterial cells from large debris using a spiral microfluidic device.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A novel width-expanding spiral microchannel for high-throughput continuous separation of bacterial-sized particles.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Dean migration mechanisms: facilitating the control of microbial contaminants in cell therapy product manufacturing.Microsystems & nanoengineering · 2026Article
- An Integrated System Combining Filter-Assisted Sample Preparation and Colorimetric Biosensing for Rapid Pathogen Detection in Complex Food Matrices.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Lab-on-Chip Systems for Cell Sorting: Main Features and Advantages of Inertial Focusing in Spiral Microchannels.Micromachines · 2024Review
- Simultaneous high-throughput particle-bacteria separation and solution exchange via in-plane and out-of-plane parallelization of microfluidic centrifuges.Biomicrofluidics · 2024Article
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
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
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.