↓ Skip to main content

Food-borne bacterial pathogens in marketed raw meat of Dharan, eastern Nepal

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Food-borne bacterial pathogens in marketed raw meat of Dharan, eastern Nepal
Published in
BMC Research Notes, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13104-018-3722-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kamana Bantawa, Kalyan Rai, Dhiren Subba Limbu, Hemanta Khanal

Abstract

This study aims to assess the bacteriological quality of marketed raw meat with a special emphasis on isolation of Escherichia coli, Salmonella spp., Shigella spp., Vibrio spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus in raw meat marketed in Dharan. Altogether 50 meat samples were collected from local markets of Dharan and transported to the microbiology laboratory at 4 °C. The meat samples were homogenized in a sterile glass homogenizer and the possible pathogens were isolated and identified by conventional microbiological techniques. The mean total viable count values were found having a mean count of 8.22 ± 0.14, 8.29 ± 0.17, 7.87 ± 0.18 and 7.92 ± 0.19 in terms of log10 CFU/g ± Standard Error for chicken, pork, buffalo, and goat meat respectively. Coliforms were found in 84% samples, S. aureus was found in 68% samples, Salmonella spp. in 34% samples, Shigella spp. in 6% samples, Vibrio spp. in only 3 samples and P. aeruginosa was isolated from 40% sample. Higher microbial load and presence of intestinal commensals E. coli, Salmonella spp., Shigella spp., Vibrio spp indicates that meat might be contaminated by the visceral content and consumers are at risk of getting a foodborne disease when eaten raw.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 27%
Student > Master 9 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Researcher 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 10 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 17%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 8 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 12%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 10%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 10 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 October 2019.
All research outputs
#9,297,947
of 15,182,010 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,571
of 3,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,059
of 274,774 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,182,010 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,366 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 274,774 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them