FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4230300165> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4230300165 endingPage "183" @default.
• W4230300165 startingPage "183" @default.
• W4230300165 abstract "ObjectivesThis study was conducted to investigate the capabilities of 2 sampling sponge types in neutralizing samples and recovering bacterial cells obtained from beef carcasses following antimicrobial interventions. A cellulose sponge hydrated with Dey-Engley (D/E) and a polyurethane sponge hydrated with High Capacity (Hi-Cap) neutralizing buffer were compared.Materials and MethodsSamples were evaluated on pH and bacterial cell recovery to determine neutralizing capabilities. Sampling was conducted over 2 d at a commercial beef slaughter plant. For pH analysis, (n = 30) D/E and Hi-Cap sponges were used to swab beef carcasses following antimicrobial acid treatment. The pH samples were obtained by swabbing on the allotted area for a total of 15 samples per sponge type, per day. Cell recovery was tested with over 2 d (n = 70, 35 of each sample type a day). Both pH and cell recovery samples were obtained by swabbing a 100 cm2 area (10 × 10 cm). To standardize samples, 10 horizontal passes were taken then the sponge was flipped and 10 vertical passes were made. Samples were transported in an insulated cooler to the Colorado State University Food Safety Laboratory for immediate plating and analysis. The pH samples were homogenized using a Stomacher Paddle Blender. A pH probe was then used to obtain pH readings for the neutralized solution in each sample. Prior to microbiological analysis, Butterfield’s diluent was added to the sampling bags for a total of 20 mL diluent, including each of the tested buffers, and subsequently homogenized. Samples were then serially diluted 10-fold in 0.1% buffered peptone water and surface plated on tryptic soy agar (TSA) to enumerate total plate counts. Plates were incubated for 72 h at 25°C, then counted. All plate counts were log converted and differences were assessed using the PROC Mixed Procedures in SAS version 9.4 (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC); difference were reported at P < 0.05.ResultsD/E neutralized samples to an average pH of 6.83 and Hi-Cap to an average of 5.90. Though D/E did have a statistically (P < 0.05) higher neutralizing ability, both sponge types had a neutralizing effect raising the pH above 5.4–5.8, the average pH of beef carcasses. Furthermore, there was no difference (P = 0.34) in cell recovery between D/E and Hi-Cap buffered sponges.ConclusionBoth D/E and Hi-Cap had similar cell recovery and successful neutralization pH above the average pH of a beef carcass. Either sponge is appropriate for plant testing of acidic antimicrobial interventions and subsequent transport to an off-site laboratory for further processing and analysis." @default.
• W4230300165 created "2022-05-11" @default.
• W4230300165 creator A5006949356 @default.
• W4230300165 creator A5008801570 @default.
• W4230300165 creator A5011098583 @default.
• W4230300165 creator A5048853096 @default.
• W4230300165 creator A5058336121 @default.
• W4230300165 creator A5062676610 @default.
• W4230300165 creator A5069467014 @default.
• W4230300165 date "2018-01-01" @default.
• W4230300165 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W4230300165 title "Comparison of Neutralizing Buffer and Sampling Sponges on Hot Beef Carcasses" @default.
• W4230300165 doi "https://doi.org/10.22175/rmc2018.161" @default.
• W4230300165 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
• W4230300165 type Work @default.
• W4230300165 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4230300165 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4230300165 hasAuthorship W4230300165A5006949356 @default.
• W4230300165 hasAuthorship W4230300165A5008801570 @default.
• W4230300165 hasAuthorship W4230300165A5011098583 @default.
• W4230300165 hasAuthorship W4230300165A5048853096 @default.
• W4230300165 hasAuthorship W4230300165A5058336121 @default.
• W4230300165 hasAuthorship W4230300165A5062676610 @default.
• W4230300165 hasAuthorship W4230300165A5069467014 @default.
• W4230300165 hasBestOaLocation W42303001651 @default.
• W4230300165 hasConcept C13965031 @default.
• W4230300165 hasConcept C175804951 @default.
• W4230300165 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W4230300165 hasConcept C2778849931 @default.
• W4230300165 hasConcept C43617362 @default.
• W4230300165 hasConcept C59822182 @default.
• W4230300165 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W4230300165 hasConceptScore W4230300165C13965031 @default.
• W4230300165 hasConceptScore W4230300165C175804951 @default.
• W4230300165 hasConceptScore W4230300165C185592680 @default.
• W4230300165 hasConceptScore W4230300165C2778849931 @default.
• W4230300165 hasConceptScore W4230300165C43617362 @default.
• W4230300165 hasConceptScore W4230300165C59822182 @default.
• W4230300165 hasConceptScore W4230300165C86803240 @default.
• W4230300165 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W4230300165 hasLocation W42303001651 @default.
• W4230300165 hasOpenAccess W4230300165 @default.
• W4230300165 hasPrimaryLocation W42303001651 @default.
• W4230300165 hasRelatedWork W1977465473 @default.
• W4230300165 hasRelatedWork W2035231676 @default.
• W4230300165 hasRelatedWork W2076276003 @default.
• W4230300165 hasRelatedWork W2082504247 @default.
• W4230300165 hasRelatedWork W2087125424 @default.
• W4230300165 hasRelatedWork W2087183382 @default.
• W4230300165 hasRelatedWork W2160724964 @default.
• W4230300165 hasRelatedWork W2266402382 @default.
• W4230300165 hasRelatedWork W2595126491 @default.
• W4230300165 hasRelatedWork W2953368900 @default.
• W4230300165 hasVolume "2" @default.
• W4230300165 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4230300165 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4230300165 workType "article" @default.