The zoonotic risk of hepatitis E virus(HEV)is well established.The HEV seroprevalence rates vary according to geographical region,assays used,and study cohorts.HEV infection is still underdiagnosed,implying the need t...The zoonotic risk of hepatitis E virus(HEV)is well established.The HEV seroprevalence rates vary according to geographical region,assays used,and study cohorts.HEV infection is still underdiagnosed,implying the need to evaluate the disease's burden in the general population and specific risk groups,such as professionally exposed.Close contact with various animal reservoirs such as pigs,rabbits,sheep,dogs,wild boars,and deer has been associated with higher anti-HEV seroprevalence as a part of occupational exposure.While exact transmission routes remain to be determined,some general preventive measures such as proper hand hygiene,the usage of personal protective equipment,and the thermal processing of food before consumption should be followed.A“One-Health”multisectoral approach should be implemented to achieve optimal health and well-being outcomes,recognizing the interconnections between humans,animals,plants,and their shared environment,in which a vaccine against the zoonotic genotypes 3 and 4 and swine vaccination should be considered as a possible public health measure.This opinion review comprehensively addresses the HEV burden of professional exposure for butchers,slaughterhouse workers,veterinarians,farmers,hunters,and forestry workers delineates the current limits of protective work measures,and tackles future directions.展开更多
The aim of this study was to assess the hygienic properties of swabs taken from the arm and coat of workers, work surfaces, refrigerated display cases, trays and packaging materials. As well as the safe properties of ...The aim of this study was to assess the hygienic properties of swabs taken from the arm and coat of workers, work surfaces, refrigerated display cases, trays and packaging materials. As well as the safe properties of samples of fresh chicken meat (wing, drumstick, chest) and chicken internal organs (heart and liver) from two butcheries. One of the goals was to determine whether education on hygienic conditions was carried out, influenced the hygienic condition of swabs and safety samples of fresh chicken meat offal. The results of the analysis showed that on the first day of sampling, the largest number of <i><span style="font-family:Verdana;">aerobic</span></i><span> <i><span style="font-family:Verdana;">mesophilic</span></i> <i><span style="font-family:Verdana;">bacteria</span></i></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> were found in the swabs of the arm (butcher A-8.15 × 10</span><sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;">2</span></sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> CFU/ml), butcher (B-17.88 × 10</span><sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;">2</span></sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> CFU/ml) and the smallest in the packaging material (0.03 × 10</span><sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;">2</span></sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> CFU/ml). Comparing the results of the first and thirtieth sampling day was </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">a </span></span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">visible decreas</span></span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">e</span></span></span><span><span><span style="font-family:;" "=""><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> in the number of </span><i><span style="font-family:Verdana;">aerobic</span></i><span> <i><span style="font-family:Verdana;">mesophilic</span></i> <i><span style="font-family:Verdana;">bacteria</span></i></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> and </span><i><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Enterobacteriaceae</span></i><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> for all examined swabs from both butchers. In the samples of fresh chicken meat, the number of </span><i><span style="font-family:Verdana;">aerobic</span></i><span> <i><span style="font-family:Verdana;">mesophilic</span></i> <i><span style="font-family:Verdana;">bacteria</span></i></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> during the first sampling was the highest in the drumstick samples (4.75 × 10</span><sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;">3</span></sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> CFU/ml) slightly less in the samples of the wing (3.78 × 10</span><sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;">3</span></sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> CFU/ml) in the butcher A, in </span></span></span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">the </span></span></span><span><span><span style="font-family:;" "=""><span style="font-family:Verdana;">same time in the butcher B was 3.82 × 10</span><sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;">3</span></sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> CFU/ml. Microbiological analyzes samples of </span></span></span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">the </span></span></span><span><span><span style="font-family:;" "=""><span style="font-family:Verdana;">thirtieth day showed that </span><i><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Escherichia</span></i><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> <i>coli</i> </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">has been found in both butchers in drumsticks A-0.8 CFU/ml, B butcher 0.4 CFU/ml. and offal butcher A 0.6 CFU/ml, butcher B 0.7 CFU/ml, but less than </span></span></span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">the </span></span></span><span><span><span>first day. It is important to say that education of workers in butcher shops has shown that it can improve good hygiene practices in butcher shops and safety of fresh chicken meat. Education in Good Hygiene Practice has positive impact on safety of fresh chicken meat in examined butcheries.</span></span></span>展开更多
Runge-Kutta scheme is one of the versatile numerical tools for the simulation of engineering systems. Despite its wide and acceptable engineering use, there is dearth of relevant literature bordering on visual impress...Runge-Kutta scheme is one of the versatile numerical tools for the simulation of engineering systems. Despite its wide and acceptable engineering use, there is dearth of relevant literature bordering on visual impression possibility among different schemes coefficients which is the strong motivation for the present investigation of the third and fourth order schemes. The present study capitalise on results of tedious computation involving Taylor series expansion equivalent supplemented with Butcher assumptions and constraint equations of well-known works which captures the essential relationship between the coefficients. The simulation proceeds from random but valid specification of two out of the total coefficients possible per scheme. However the remaining coefficients are evaluated with application of appropriate function relationship. Eight and thirteen unknown coefficients were simulated respectively for third and fourth schemes over a total of five thousand cases each for relevant distribution statistics and scatter plots analysis for the purpose of scheme comparison and visual import. The respective three and four coefficients of the slope estimate for the third and fourth schemes have mix sign for large number of simulated cases. However, none of the two schemes have above three of these coefficients lesser than zero. The percentages of simulation results with two coefficients lesser than zero dominate and are respectively 56.88 and 77.10 for third and fourth schemes. It was observed that both popular third and fourth schemes belong to none of the coefficients being zero classification with respective percentage of 0.72 and 3.28 intotal simulated cases. The comparisons of corresponding scatter plots are visually exciting. The overall difference between corresponding scatter plots and distribution results can be used to justify the accuracy of fourth scheme over its counterpart third scheme.展开更多
文摘The zoonotic risk of hepatitis E virus(HEV)is well established.The HEV seroprevalence rates vary according to geographical region,assays used,and study cohorts.HEV infection is still underdiagnosed,implying the need to evaluate the disease's burden in the general population and specific risk groups,such as professionally exposed.Close contact with various animal reservoirs such as pigs,rabbits,sheep,dogs,wild boars,and deer has been associated with higher anti-HEV seroprevalence as a part of occupational exposure.While exact transmission routes remain to be determined,some general preventive measures such as proper hand hygiene,the usage of personal protective equipment,and the thermal processing of food before consumption should be followed.A“One-Health”multisectoral approach should be implemented to achieve optimal health and well-being outcomes,recognizing the interconnections between humans,animals,plants,and their shared environment,in which a vaccine against the zoonotic genotypes 3 and 4 and swine vaccination should be considered as a possible public health measure.This opinion review comprehensively addresses the HEV burden of professional exposure for butchers,slaughterhouse workers,veterinarians,farmers,hunters,and forestry workers delineates the current limits of protective work measures,and tackles future directions.
文摘The aim of this study was to assess the hygienic properties of swabs taken from the arm and coat of workers, work surfaces, refrigerated display cases, trays and packaging materials. As well as the safe properties of samples of fresh chicken meat (wing, drumstick, chest) and chicken internal organs (heart and liver) from two butcheries. One of the goals was to determine whether education on hygienic conditions was carried out, influenced the hygienic condition of swabs and safety samples of fresh chicken meat offal. The results of the analysis showed that on the first day of sampling, the largest number of <i><span style="font-family:Verdana;">aerobic</span></i><span> <i><span style="font-family:Verdana;">mesophilic</span></i> <i><span style="font-family:Verdana;">bacteria</span></i></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> were found in the swabs of the arm (butcher A-8.15 × 10</span><sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;">2</span></sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> CFU/ml), butcher (B-17.88 × 10</span><sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;">2</span></sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> CFU/ml) and the smallest in the packaging material (0.03 × 10</span><sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;">2</span></sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> CFU/ml). Comparing the results of the first and thirtieth sampling day was </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">a </span></span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">visible decreas</span></span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">e</span></span></span><span><span><span style="font-family:;" "=""><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> in the number of </span><i><span style="font-family:Verdana;">aerobic</span></i><span> <i><span style="font-family:Verdana;">mesophilic</span></i> <i><span style="font-family:Verdana;">bacteria</span></i></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> and </span><i><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Enterobacteriaceae</span></i><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> for all examined swabs from both butchers. In the samples of fresh chicken meat, the number of </span><i><span style="font-family:Verdana;">aerobic</span></i><span> <i><span style="font-family:Verdana;">mesophilic</span></i> <i><span style="font-family:Verdana;">bacteria</span></i></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> during the first sampling was the highest in the drumstick samples (4.75 × 10</span><sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;">3</span></sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> CFU/ml) slightly less in the samples of the wing (3.78 × 10</span><sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;">3</span></sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> CFU/ml) in the butcher A, in </span></span></span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">the </span></span></span><span><span><span style="font-family:;" "=""><span style="font-family:Verdana;">same time in the butcher B was 3.82 × 10</span><sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;">3</span></sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> CFU/ml. Microbiological analyzes samples of </span></span></span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">the </span></span></span><span><span><span style="font-family:;" "=""><span style="font-family:Verdana;">thirtieth day showed that </span><i><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Escherichia</span></i><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> <i>coli</i> </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">has been found in both butchers in drumsticks A-0.8 CFU/ml, B butcher 0.4 CFU/ml. and offal butcher A 0.6 CFU/ml, butcher B 0.7 CFU/ml, but less than </span></span></span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">the </span></span></span><span><span><span>first day. It is important to say that education of workers in butcher shops has shown that it can improve good hygiene practices in butcher shops and safety of fresh chicken meat. Education in Good Hygiene Practice has positive impact on safety of fresh chicken meat in examined butcheries.</span></span></span>
文摘Runge-Kutta scheme is one of the versatile numerical tools for the simulation of engineering systems. Despite its wide and acceptable engineering use, there is dearth of relevant literature bordering on visual impression possibility among different schemes coefficients which is the strong motivation for the present investigation of the third and fourth order schemes. The present study capitalise on results of tedious computation involving Taylor series expansion equivalent supplemented with Butcher assumptions and constraint equations of well-known works which captures the essential relationship between the coefficients. The simulation proceeds from random but valid specification of two out of the total coefficients possible per scheme. However the remaining coefficients are evaluated with application of appropriate function relationship. Eight and thirteen unknown coefficients were simulated respectively for third and fourth schemes over a total of five thousand cases each for relevant distribution statistics and scatter plots analysis for the purpose of scheme comparison and visual import. The respective three and four coefficients of the slope estimate for the third and fourth schemes have mix sign for large number of simulated cases. However, none of the two schemes have above three of these coefficients lesser than zero. The percentages of simulation results with two coefficients lesser than zero dominate and are respectively 56.88 and 77.10 for third and fourth schemes. It was observed that both popular third and fourth schemes belong to none of the coefficients being zero classification with respective percentage of 0.72 and 3.28 intotal simulated cases. The comparisons of corresponding scatter plots are visually exciting. The overall difference between corresponding scatter plots and distribution results can be used to justify the accuracy of fourth scheme over its counterpart third scheme.