2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.tifs.2022.07.014
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Microfluidics at the interface of bacteria and fresh produce

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 79 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Additionally, as visual inspection is the only gold standard test currently available for field assessments, we intend to offer fresh produce stakeholders an alternative by providing a quantitative understanding of the potential of fecal contamination in their fields. In the future, it is also possible to conduct these risk assessments in the field by using assays such as loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) (Davidson et al, 2021;Mohan et al, 2021;Pascual-Garrigos et al, 2021;Ranjbaran and Verma, 2022;Wang et al, 2023Wang et al, , 2022Wang et al, , 2021 as opposed to lab-based qPCR.…”
Section: Bacteroidales Concentration As a Fecal Contamination Biomark...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, as visual inspection is the only gold standard test currently available for field assessments, we intend to offer fresh produce stakeholders an alternative by providing a quantitative understanding of the potential of fecal contamination in their fields. In the future, it is also possible to conduct these risk assessments in the field by using assays such as loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) (Davidson et al, 2021;Mohan et al, 2021;Pascual-Garrigos et al, 2021;Ranjbaran and Verma, 2022;Wang et al, 2023Wang et al, , 2022Wang et al, , 2021 as opposed to lab-based qPCR.…”
Section: Bacteroidales Concentration As a Fecal Contamination Biomark...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Very recently, Yin et al discussed the current state-of-art and future perspectives of detection methods for foodborne viruses. 317 Other recent review articles that include microfluidic devices have been worked out, for instance by Gao et al , who discussed advances in microfluidic devices for foodborne pathogen detection, 318 by Shang et al with focus on advances in nanomaterial-based microfluidic platforms, 319 by Ranjbaran et al on microfluidics at the interface of bacteria and fresh produce, 320 or by Quintela et al on advances and limitations of portable and rapid detection technologies for foodborne pathogens. 321 Mi et al summarized microfluidic biosensor tools for foodborne pathogenic bacteria and Su et al investigated microfluidic nucleic acid tests of foodborne viruses.…”
Section: Gastrointestinal Tract Infectionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Microfluidics, the science and technology of manipulating tiny volumes of fluid within devices with tailored microscale channels, has emerged as another promising class of biopatterning technologies for efficiently immobilizing bacteria into customized patterns. , Typically, microfluidic devices are made of elastomeric PDMS using multilayer soft lithography. , Common designs for microfluidic cultivating devices include microwells, microdroplets, and microchambers . Microfluidics creates controlled microenvironments for bacterial cells to grow and interact within microcavities of different shapes and sizes .…”
Section: Bacterial Patterning Strategiesmentioning
confidence: 99%