Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters

Database
Country/Region as subject
Language
Publication year range
1.
J Dairy Sci ; 93(11): 5082-90, 2010 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20965322

ABSTRACT

This study determined the vitamin D(3) content and variability of retail milk in the United States having a declared fortification level of 400 IU (10 µg) per quart (qt; 1 qt=946.4 mL), which is 25% daily value per 8 fluid ounce (236.6 mL) serving. In 2007, vitamin D(3) fortified milk (skim, 1%, 2%, whole, and 1% fat chocolate milk) was collected from 24 statistically selected supermarkets in the United States. Additionally, 2% milk samples from an earlier 2001 USDA nationwide collection were reanalyzed. Vitamin D(3) was determined using a specifically validated method involving HPLC with UV spectroscopic detection and vitamin D(2) as an internal standard. Quality control materials were analyzed with the samples. Of the 120 milk samples procured in 2007, 49% had vitamin D(3) within 100 to 125% of 400 IU (10 µg)/qt (label value), 28% had 501 to 600 IU (12.5-15 µg)/qt, 16% had a level below the label amount, and 7% had greater than 600 IU (15 µg)/qt (>150% of label). Even though the mean vitamin D(3) content did not differ statistically between milk types, a wide range in values was found among individual samples, from nondetectable [<20 IU (0.5 µg)/qt] for one sample to almost 800 IU (20 µg)/qt, with a trend toward more samples of whole milk having greater than 150% of the labeled content. On average, vitamin D(3) in 2% milk was higher in 2007 compared with in 2001 [473 vs. 426 IU (11.8 vs. 10.6 µg)/qt].


Subject(s)
Cholecalciferol/analysis , Cholecalciferol/standards , Food, Fortified/standards , Milk/chemistry , Animals , Databases, Factual , Food, Fortified/analysis , Milk/standards , Nutritional Requirements , Quality Control , Reference Standards , United States , United States Department of Agriculture
2.
Am J Infect Control ; 29(6): 389-94, 2001 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-11743486

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Despite a lack of empiric data to support the practice, traditionally, antiseptic solutions have been used to clean the periurethral area before inserting an indwelling catheter. The purpose of this study was to compare urinary colonization rates of subjects whose periurethral area was cleaned with water versus chlorhexidine 0.1% before the insertion of an indwelling urinary catheter. METHODS: Obstetric patients who required urinary catheterization as part of their routine care were randomly assigned to either the "water" or "chlorhexidine" group with a sealed envelope. A sterile specimen of urine was collected 24 hours after insertion of the catheter. RESULTS: Of the 436 patients (86.2%) with complete data (water group, 219; antiseptic group, 217), 38 (8.7%) had urinary tract bacteriuria >10(6) cfu/L. Rates of urinary tract infection were similar in each group (water group, 8.2%; antiseptic group, 9.2%; odds ratio 1.13; 95% confidence interval 0.58-2.21). CONCLUSION: The practice of periurethral cleaning with an antiseptic did not decrease the rates of bacteriuria in this population and is probably not useful.


Subject(s)
Anti-Infective Agents, Local/therapeutic use , Chlorhexidine/analogs & derivatives , Chlorhexidine/therapeutic use , Disinfection/methods , Urethra/microbiology , Urinary Catheterization/methods , Water , Adult , Female , Humans , Microbial Sensitivity Tests , Pregnancy
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL