[
1. Capita R, Prieto M, Alonso-Calleja C: Sampling methods for microbiological analysis of red meat and poultry carcasses. J Food Protect 2004, 67(6):1303-1308.10.4315/0362-028X-67.6.1303
]Search in Google Scholar
[
2. Martinez B, Celda MF, Anastasio B, Garcia I, Lopez-Mendoza MC: Microbiological sampling of carcasses by excision or swabbing with three types of sponge or gauze. J Food Protect 2010, 73:81–87.10.4315/0362-028X-73.1.8120051208
]Search in Google Scholar
[
3. Milios KT, Drosinos EH, Zoiopoulos PE: Food Safety Management System validation and verification in meat industry: Carcass sampling methods for microbiological hygiene criteria - A review. Food Control 2014, 43:74-81.10.1016/j.foodcont.2014.02.041
]Search in Google Scholar
[
4. Singh PH, Lee C, Chin KB, Ha SD, Kang I: Quantification of loosely associated and tightly associated bacteria on broiler carcass skin using swabbing, stomaching, and grinding methods. Poultry Sci 2015, 94(12):3034–3039.10.3382/ps/pev26526467007
]Search in Google Scholar
[
5. Gallina S, Bianchi DM, Ru G, Maurella C, Barzanti P, Baioni E, Virgilio S, Mioni R, Lanni L, Migliazzo A, Losio MN, Bove D, Scuota S, Goffredo E, Decastelli L: Microbiological recovery from bovine, swine, equine, and ovine carcasses: Comparison of excision, sponge and swab sampling methods. Food Control 2015, 50:919-924.10.1016/j.foodcont.2014.10.052
]Search in Google Scholar
[
6. Warnke P, Warning L, Podbielski A: Some are more equal – a comparative study on swab uptake and release of bacterial suspensions. PLoS One 2014, 9:e102215.10.1371/journal.pone.0102215409211125010422
]Search in Google Scholar
[
7. Ghafir Y, Daube G: Comparison of swabbing and destructive methods for microbiological pig carcass sampling. Let Appl Microbiol 2008, 47:322–326.10.1111/j.1472-765X.2008.02433.x19241527
]Search in Google Scholar
[
8. Marinou I, Bersimis S, Ioannidis A, Nicolaou C, Mitroussia-Ziouva A, Legakis NJ: Identification and antimicrobial resistance of Campylobacter species isolated from animal sources. Front Microbiol 2012, 3(58):1-6.10.3389/fmicb.2012.00058328577022375138
]Search in Google Scholar
[
9. Nobile CGA, Costantino R, Bianco A, Pileggi C, Pavia M: Prevalence and pattern of antibiotic resistance of Campylobacter spp. in poultry meat in Southern Italy. Food Control 2013, 32:715–718.10.1016/j.foodcont.2013.02.011
]Search in Google Scholar
[
10. Lazou T, Houf K, Soultos N, Dovas C, Iossifidou E: Campylobacter in small ruminants at slaughter: prevalence, pulsotypes and antibiotic resistance. Int J Food Microbiol 2014, 173: 54–61.10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2013.12.01124412959
]Search in Google Scholar
[
11. Lazou T, Dovas C, Houf K, Soultos N, Iossifidou E: Diversity of Campylobacter in retail meat and liver of lambs and goat kids. Foodborne Pathog Dis 2014, 11(4):320–328.10.1089/fpd.2013.167824437705
]Search in Google Scholar
[
12. Torralbo A, Borge C, García-Bocanegra I, Méric G, Perea A, Carbonero A: Higher resistance of Campylobacter coli compared to Campylobacter jejuni at chicken slaughterhouse. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis 2015, 39:47-52.10.1016/j.cimid.2015.02.00325770597
]Search in Google Scholar
[
13. Pedonese F, Nuvoloni R, Turchi B, Torracca B, Di Giannatale E, Marotta F, Cerri D: Prevalence, phenotypic and genetic diversity of Campylobacter in poultry fresh meat and poultry products on retail sale in Tuscany (Italy). Vet Ital 2017, 53(1):29–37.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
14. EFSA and ECDC (European Food Safety Authority and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control): The European Union One Health 2019 Zoonoses Report. EFSA J 2021;19(2):6406, 286 pp.10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6406791330033680134
]Search in Google Scholar
[
15. Sakaridis I, Papadopoulos T, Boukouvala E, Ekateriniadou L, Samouris G, Zdragas A: Prevalence, Antimicrobial Resistance, and Molecular Typing of Thermophilic Campylobacter Spp. in a Greek Poultry Slaughterhouse. Acta Veterinaria - Beograd 2019, 69(3): 325-339.10.2478/acve-2019-0027
]Search in Google Scholar
[
16. Lazou TP, Iossifidou EG, Gelasakis AI, Chaintoutis SC, Dovas CI: Viability quantitative PCR utilizing propidium monoazide, spheroplast formation, and Campylobacter coli as a bacterial model. Appl Environ Microbiol 2019, 85:e01499-19.10.1128/AEM.01499-19680507231420339
]Search in Google Scholar
[
17. Moore G, Griffith C: Problem associated with traditional hygiene swabbing: The need for in-house standardization. J Appl Microbiol 2007, 103: 1090e1103.10.1111/j.1365-2672.2007.03330.x17897214
]Search in Google Scholar
[
18. Lazou TP, Gelasakis AI, Chaintoutis SC, Iossifidou EG, Dovas CI: Method-Dependent Implications in Foodborne Pathogen Quantification: The Case of Campylobacter coli Survival on Meat as Comparatively Assessed by Colony Count and Viability PCR. Front Microbiol 2021, 12:604933.10.3389/fmicb.2021.604933795698433732219
]Search in Google Scholar
[
19. Zeng D, Chen Z, Jiang Y, Xue F, Li B: Advances and Challenges in Viability Detection of Foodborne Pathogens. Front Microbiol 2016, 7:1833.10.3389/fmicb.2016.01833511841527920757
]Search in Google Scholar
[
20. ISO 10272-2:2017. Microbiology of the food chain—horizontal method for detection and enumeration of Campylobacter spp. — Part 2: colony-count technique.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
21. Keeratipibul S, Laovittayanurak T, Pornruangsarp O, Chaturongkasumrit Y, Takahashi H, Techaruvichit P: Effect of swabbing techniques on the efficiency of bacterial recovery from food contact surfaces. Food Control 2017, 77:139-144.10.1016/j.foodcont.2017.02.013
]Search in Google Scholar
[
22. Butler JL, Stewart JC, Vanderzant C, Carpenter ZL, Smith GC: Attachment of microorganisms to pork skin and surfaces of beef and lamb carcasses. J Food Protect 1979, 42:401–406.10.4315/0362-028X-42.5.40130812283
]Search in Google Scholar
[
23. Pepperell R, Reid CA, Solano SN, Hutchison ML, Walters LD, Johnston AM, Buncic S: Experimental comparison of excision and swabbing microbiological sampling methods for carcasses. J Food Protect 2005, 68(10):2163-2168.10.4315/0362-028X-68.10.2163
]Search in Google Scholar
