2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2004.07.035
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Distribution of chloramphenicol residues in lactating cows following an external application

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Neff et al (2006) during a reference study on the prevalence of salmonella in flocks in Switzerland also isolated Salmonella strains. Furthermore, salmonella has been known to be the most prevalent pathogen to cause intramammary infections in poultry leading to major economic losses (Pengov et al, 2005) and…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Neff et al (2006) during a reference study on the prevalence of salmonella in flocks in Switzerland also isolated Salmonella strains. Furthermore, salmonella has been known to be the most prevalent pathogen to cause intramammary infections in poultry leading to major economic losses (Pengov et al, 2005) and…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These findings although not the main scope of this study, indicate a possible health risk because S. aureus may produce a heat stable toxin in raw milk [35,36]. Furthermore, S. aureus has been known to be the most prevalent pathogen to cause intramammary infections in dairy ruminants leading to major economic losses [37,38]. However, the S. aureus isolated from the above samples were resistant to both Gentamicin and Streptomycin (Table 3) and this result is quite alarming because if the drugs were or are to be used to treat and control the condition, regular doses may no longer be effective; thus, promoting a high health and residual levels risk on the animals and humans.…”
Section: Microbiological Analysis Of Milk Samplesmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Qualitative and quantitative analyses of CAP have been performed using rapid test kits (radio-immunoassays and enzyme immunoassays) ( , ), thin layer chromatography (), gas chromatography (GC) with an electron capture detector after chemical derivatization ( , ), immunoaffinity chromatography (), or high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) with ultraviolet detection ( , ). All of these methods suffer from low sensitivity and are considered unsuitable for the detection of CAP, because the confirmation of suspect positive samples must be carried out by mass spectrometry (MS) coupled to chromatographic separation such as GC and HPLC, according to Commission Decision 2002/657/EC ().…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%