989 resultados para 45-395
Resumo:
Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)
Resumo:
Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)
Resumo:
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)
Resumo:
Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)
Resumo:
Pós-graduação em Zootecnia - FCAV
Resumo:
Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)
Resumo:
Conveyor belts are widely used in food handling areas, especially in poultry processing plants. Because they are in direct contact with food and it is a requirement of the Brazilian health authority, conveyor belts are required to be continuously cleaned with hot water under pressure. The use of water in this procedure has been questioned based on the hypothesis that water may further disseminate microorganisms but not effectively reduce the organic material on the surface. Moreover, reducing the use of water in processing may contribute to a reduction in costs and emission of effluents. However, no consistent evidence in support of removing water during conveyor belt cleaning has been reported. Therefore, the objective of the present study was to compare the bacterial counts on conveyor belts that were or were not continuously cleaned with hot water under pressure. Superficial samples from conveyor belts (cleaned or not cleaned) were collected at three different times during operation (T1, after the preoperational cleaning [5 a.m.]; T2, after the first work shift [4 p.m.]; and T3, after the second work shift [1:30 a.m.]) in a poultry meat processing facility, and the samples were subjected to mesophilic and enterobacterial counts. For Enterobacteriaceae, no significant differences were observed between the conveyor belts, independent of the time of sampling or the cleaning process. No significant differences were observed between the counts of mesophilic bacteria at the distinct times of sampling on the conveyor belt that had not been subjected to continuous cleaning with water at 45 degrees C. When comparing similar periods of sampling, no significant differences were observed between the mesophilic counts obtained from the conveyor belts that were or were not subjected to continuous cleaning with water at 45 degrees C. Continuous cleaning with water did not significantly reduce microorganism counts, suggesting the possibility of discarding this procedure in chicken processing.
Resumo:
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)
Resumo:
The article reports on research conducted with fifteen teachers and forty-five students in three high schools municipal Marília - SP, with the goal of mapping relationships between school libraries, computer labs and digital devices. The investigation is linked to the other two poles: one in the Faculty of Education, Federal University of Uberlândia and another at the French Institute of Education, in Lyon, France. Responses were obtained through questions previously formulated and recorded by scholars in an interview situation. The article initially retrieves historical projects of French in the late nineteenth century with the intention of establishing linkages with the situation in 2012, in Brazil. It then presents and comments on the graphics with data. The findings indicate the absence of organicity in relations between libraries and computer labs. Handheld devices outside of school are predominantly used to play and participate in social networking sites.
Resumo:
BackgroundThe success of epidural anaesthesia depends on correct identification of the epidural space. For several decades, the decision of whether to use air or physiological saline during the loss of resistance technique for identification of the epidural space has been governed by the personal experience of the anaesthesiologist. Epidural block remains one of the main regional anaesthesia techniques. It is used for surgical anaesthesia, obstetrical analgesia, postoperative analgesia and treatment of chronic pain and as a complement to general anaesthesia. The sensation felt by the anaesthesiologist from the syringe plunger with loss of resistance is different when air is compared with saline (fluid). Frequently fluid allows a rapid change from resistance to non-resistance and increased movement of the plunger. However, the ideal technique for identification of the epidural space remains unclear.ObjectivesTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of both air and saline in the loss of resistance technique for identification of the epidural space.To evaluate complications related to the air or saline injected.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 9), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Database (LILACS) (from inception to September 2013). We applied no language restrictions. The date of the most recent search was 7 September 2013.Selection criteriaWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized controlled trials (quasi-RCTs) on air and saline in the loss of resistance technique for identification of the epidural space.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.Main resultsWe included in the review seven studies with a total of 852 participants. The methodological quality of the included studies was generally ranked as showing low risk of bias inmost domains, with the exception of one study, which did not mask participants. We were able to include data from 838 participants in the meta-analysis. We found no statistically significant differences between participants receiving air and those given saline in any of the outcomes evaluated: inability to locate the epidural space (three trials, 619 participants) (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 2.31, low-quality evidence); accidental intravascular catheter placement (two trials, 223 participants) (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.45, low-quality evidence); accidental subarachnoid catheter placement (four trials, 682 participants) (RR 2.95, 95% CI 0.12 to 71.90, low-quality evidence); combined spinal epidural failure (two trials, 400 participants) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.18, low-quality evidence); unblocked segments (five studies, 423 participants) (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.72 to 3.85); and pain measured by VAS (two studies, 395 participants) (mean difference (MD) -0.09, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.18). With regard to adverse effects, we found no statistically significant differences between participants receiving air and those given saline in the occurrence of paraesthesias (three trials, 572 participants) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.15); difficulty in advancing the catheter (two trials, 227 participants) (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.56); catheter replacement (two trials, 501 participants) (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.83); and postdural puncture headache (one trial, 110 participants) (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.12 to 5.71).Authors' conclusionsLow-quality evidence shows that results do not differ between air and saline in terms of the loss of resistance technique for identification of the epidural space and reduction of complications. Applicability might be compromised, as most of the results described in this review were obtained from parturient patients. This review underlines the need to conduct well-designed trials in this field.