Get help from the best in academic writing.

HIST 210 Mercer University Atlanta Generations of Captivity Discussion

HIST 210 Mercer University Atlanta Generations of Captivity Discussion.

Now, to complete the block on sources in your Reading Grid, review the endnotes for the chapter looking for primary and secondary sources. Keep in mind that each numbered note usually contains more than one source. Sources in individual notes are separated by a semi-colon. Do your best to count the number of primary and secondary sources in total for all the endnotes provided. I’m not expecting perfection here, just your best effort to determine the number and kind of sources Berlin uses for his chapters. Just do your best. https://youtu.be/o1og03RKuhUIn the “Sources” block of the Reading Grid, write the total number of primary sources you found and the total number of secondary sources. In addition, provide the title of one of the primary sources and one of the secondary sources as examples. QUESTION 1. What are the similarities and differences between the Plantation Generations and the Revolutionary Generations? Think in terms of themes such as work, family life, resistance, revolt, urban vs. rural, house vs. field, free blacks vs. the enslaved, the slave economy, punishment and violence, freedom vs. enslavement. You do not have to address all of these themes (or you may see others I have not mentioned here), but rather choose those you think most relevant and important to understanding a comparison between these two generations
HIST 210 Mercer University Atlanta Generations of Captivity Discussion

Price Promotion Field Study-01

Price Promotion Field Study-01. I don’t understand this Writing question and need help to study.

Book link: https://b-ok.cc/book/3413317/3a3ecb
Must use at least 2 citation from Chapter 19
Word count :300
Writing instruction:
Overview:
In this study, we will apply our understanding of pricing strategies and their impact on consumer decisions in a field study of prices presented at a local retail store or an online store.
Background:
Assume you are part of a marketing consulting team, and your task is to assess competing firms’ pricing strategies to get a feel for market demand within the retail industry. Assume several retail stores that you frequent or several online/mobile retail sites/apps that you use represent the competitors you will be assessing. Review the stores/sites/apps to compare pricing of different products/services to find
different examples of most or all of the following pricing tactics:

– quantity discounts
– cumulative quantity discounts
– seasonal discounts
– rebates
– zero percent financing
– price-matching
– price lining
– charm pricing / psychological pricing (.99 pricing)
– price bundling (product option pricing)
– pay what you want pricing (price bidding)
– payment method pricing (credit card / cash)
– two-part pricing (product + professional service pricing)
– freight absorption (delivery option) pricing
– captive product pricing
– loss-leader pricing

Assignment:

1) Visit several retail stores, preferably stores that are not busy and display prices clearly. Alternatively, visit mobile shopping apps or online shopping sites. You can also look at a mix of physical retail stores and mobile/web shopping retailers. If possible, ask store managers if you can snap pics of some product displays for a Marketing class assignment (assure them you will not share the photos outside of your Marketing class and not include any customers in the photos).
2) Observe prices of different products/services in the stores/apps/sites you visit, taking photos of prices that show the above listed pricing tactics. For mobile or online retailers, take screenshots of the prices you view.
3) Find examples of at least 7 of the above pricing tactics, making sure you have a photo or screenshot of each CLEARLY showing the price(s).

 Cite all photos using proper APA in-text citation format for citing your own digital photography works.
 Cite screenshots as if they are your own photos (use the same format as citing your own photos).
 DO NOT JUST BORROW PHOTOS FROM ONLINE SOURCES – You must take your own photos or screenshots for this assignment, and the date of your photos/screenshots must be clearly presented in your in-text citations under each photo/screenshot so that your professor can verify if needed.

OL ADP MKTG330 Marketing [Veach]
4) Compile your photos/screenshots into a paper in which you include with each photo/screenshot a short paragraph that
o describes the product/service the price showing in the photo/screenshot refers to in a few words
o re-states the listed price (and associated conditions if any) in a few words o identifies the name of the retailer where the product/service is offered o clearly names the pricing tactic o briefly (one sentence) offers your opinion of whether or not this pricing tactic works
for this retailer and this product/service.
5) Add your name and title to the top of the first page, followed by a very short introduction sharing when and how you collected the photos/screenshots and information for this assignment, and include a references section at the end showing where you gathered information on the pricing tactics. Thus, you will format your paper as:

Introduction – the assignment’s purpose, where and how photos/screenshots and information were collected for the paper.
Photo/screenshot showing first pricing tactic example
Photo/screenshot showing second pricing tactic example
Photo/screenshot showing third pricing tactic example
Photo/screenshot showing fourth pricing tactic example
Photo/screenshot showing fifth pricing tactic example
Photo/screenshot showing sixth pricing tactic example
Photo/screenshot showing seventh pricing tactic example
References – full APA citations for sources on pricing tactics (probably including a citation for our course textbook

Cite your own photos , put your citation directly under each photo (not as a reference or footnote), and cite it like this: Figure 1. Skywalker, L. (2019, Dec. 3). Captive Product Pricing at Walmart in Eugene [Digital Photograph]. For this assignment, you can use the same format for screenshots, but list the format at the end as [Screenshot].
Price Promotion Field Study-01

For assignments, you may add space between questions to allow adequate room for your answers. Please use college-level writing

java assignment help For assignments, you may add space between questions to allow adequate room for your answers. Please use college-level writing in your work. Check for correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation before submitting your work. Points will be deducted if your answer is difficult to read due to poor spelling and grammar. Hover mouse over the link and hold down Ctrl and right click Part 1: Go to https://careersinpsychology.org/psychology-careers/. Browse the lists of psychology careers presented there. Select two that you find interesting or new to you (not necessarily careers that you yourself might be interested in!). Write two paragraphs summarizing the two careers and explaining why you think they are interesting. Part 2: Briefly interview someone you know who uses psychology in their work. The individual does not need to be trained in psychology or working in a field specific to psychology. (For example, a mother uses psychology in raising her children. A restaurant server uses psychology in dealing with customers.) Write one to two paragraphs explaining how the person uses principles of psychology in his/her work. MUST be in APA format Font size 12 Times New Romain

Bacteria on Stainless Steel Surfaces | Experiment

Bacteria on Stainless Steel Surfaces | Experiment. The attachment of bacteria on food processing surfaces and in the environment can cause potential cross-contamination, which can lead to food spoilage, possible food safety concerns, and surface destruction. Food contact surfaces used for food handling, storage or processing are areas where microbial contamination commonly occurs. Even with proper cleaning and sanitation regimes or practices in place, bacteria can remain attached to the surfaces and this attachment can lead to biofilm formation. The purpose of this study was to identify the presence of pathogenic microorganism in a food processing area and to evaluate the effect of the cleaning procedure on the microbial load in the food processing area. Ten replicate food contact surfaces were tested: stainless steel, marble and wood, with adjacent areas being sampled before and after cleaning. The test surfaces were analyzed with a swab method before and after the cleaning stage. The results of these studies indicate that three of ten stainless steel surface were contaminated before cleaning and no surface was contaminated after cleaning. Furthermore, three out of ten marble surfaces were contaminated before cleaning and one surface was contaminated after cleaning. Six of ten wood surfaces were heavily contaminated before cleaning and three surfaces were contaminated after cleaning. The difficulty in cleaning was related to the amount of surface damage and it is best to avoid this type of surface. Hypochlorite solution that was used for cleaning the surfaces in this study was considered to be effective against the foodborne pathogens tested. This study has highlighted the fact that pathogens remain viable on dry stainless steel surfaces and present a contamination hazard for considerable periods of time, dependent on the contamination levels and type of pathogen. Keywords: Microorganisms; Survival; Cross-contamination; Food contact surface Introduction Food contact surfaces are the chief denizen of biofilm that can host potentially harmful microorganisms. This, therefore, is a prominent phenomenon in food processing plants owing to dregs and residues of all sorts – chemical, biological, organic, and/or inorganic -which build up on the surfaces of equipments that may get in contact with food (Mafu et al. 2010). The presence of these undesirable microorganisms to the material surfaces is a source of concern, as this can result in food cross-contamination, leading to food poisoning. Under favourable circumstances (temperature, pH, relative humidity), pathogenic microorganisms are able to survive and/or replicate on a large scale within the biofilm. In domestic kitchens and food processing industries, foodborne illness can result from incorrect storage of foods, particularly with respect to temperature, contamination of raw or cooked foods before consumption, by contact with other foods or utensils (food contact surfaces ) carrying pathogens, and inadequate cleaning procedures that may not see complete removal of microorganisms (Teixeira et al. 2007). In food processing industries, food contact surfaces, such as stainless steel, marble and wood may create an enabling environment for the survival of the microorganism, leading to serious hygienic problems. Furthermore, dead ends, corners, joints, valves and any other hard-to-reach places are the most appropriate areas for the presence of bacteria. (Peng et al. 2001). The value of maintenance and disinfection processes in food processing industries depends, to a large extent, on the design and maintenance programmes adopted by the company. Lack of efficacy in cleaning procedures may allow persistence and survival of pathogens in foods owing to their consistent adherence to food contact surfaces. This may lead to transfer of microorganisms from people, objects or contaminated food to other food or material, hence leading to cross-contamination. People can, in many ways, be a source of cross-contamination to foods (Holah and Thorpe, 1990). Food can be contaminated when it is handled, so it is very important that people who may be carrying or suffering from certain diseases do not handle food. Contamination can also be passed from equipment when contacting food. It specifically happens when utensils or equipment are not efficiently cleaned and sanitized between each use and may lead to development of biofilm, creating favourable conditions for the survival of the pathogens. Contamination from food to food occurs mainly when raw foods come into contact with cooked or prepared foods (Montville et al. 2001). The persistent presence of microorganisms in food processing factories, specifically on food contact surfaces despite deliberate efforts to combat the phenomenon, poses great challenges to the company. It reduces the profit margins of the industries due to the increased cost incurred in the attempts to adopt advanced cleaning services and programmes. A potential effect of the presence of microorganisms on food surfaces is food poisoning. Occurrence of food poisoning will mean great damage to the image of the company and persistent stress on the part of the management, thus derailing the progress of the company. Cross contamination is also becoming a common problem both in the kitchen setting and in industry. Transfer of resistant pathogens and microorganisms across and around these food producers through various agents and factors that propagate and carry the pathogens is a health hazard. Studies show that the level of contamination varies depending on the duplication and the rate of material handling that occurs in the factory. In this context, therefore, workers’ hands, utensils and the broad extension of all food contact surfaces contribute to in cross contamination (Zhao et al. 1998). A thorough examination of the whole concept of microbial survival and persistence on food contact surfaces despite typical cleaning procedures and revised designs of the food contact surfaces (such as textural properties, maintained solid surface hydrophobicity) will reveal that more detailed analysis and studies should be focused on the factors that create an enabling environment for the persistent replication and presence of the foodborne pathogens in the food processing industries and kitchen setting (Scott and Bloomfield, 1990). The study of various relevant properties for the microbial adhesion process has been another imperative goal of this study and the purpose behind it is to obtain a broader knowledge base of the mechanisms of bacterial adhesion to food contact surfaces so as to formulate strategies for its control. The objective of this study is to identify the microorganisms that can survive in the food contact surface, such as stainless steel, marble and wood, even after cleaning procedures, thus increasing the risk of food cross-contamination. The study will focus on microorganisms that survive in the food processing areas even after the cleaning procedure. Foodborne pathogenic bacteria adhere to inert surfaces; they may exhibit a greater scale of resistance to chemical or ordinary cleaning and fumigating agents (Barnes et al. 1999). The concept of cross contamination is of major concern in the food processing industries that constitute a threat to human health because they cause most food borne illness outbreaks. Food poisoning is one of the consequences of adherence of microorganisms to food contact surfaces (Sattar et al. 2001). Materials and Methods Premises In order to assess the microbiological safety of a food processing area in Oman, three types of food contact surfaces were studied: Stainless steel, marble and wood. Ten surfaces of each of the three types were tested, with the adjacent areas of each one being sampled before and after cleaning. This study was performed randomly in nineteen selected Army camps kitchen. Data analysis Swabs were taken from the food processing area within the Royal Army camps kitchen and sent to the food microbiology laboratory of the environmental of health unit for analysis. The swabs were each tested for pathogenic bacteria linked with food and coliforms that can survive on the surface of food preparation areas before and after cleaning. The plates were read for the number of colonies of pathogenic bacteria and coliforms. A Phoenix machine was used to identify the bacteria and readings were taken directly from the Phoenix machine. A Phoenix is automated microbiology system is intended to provide rapid identification results for most aerobic and facultative anaerobic Gram positive bacteria as well as most aerobic and facultative anaerobic Gram negative bacteria. The identification of the Phoeonix panal uses a series of conventional, chromogenic and fluorogenic biochemical tests to identify the organism. The growth-based and enzymatic substrates are employed to cover the different types of reactivity among the range of taxa. The tests are based on the use of bacteria and deterioration of specific substrates detected by different indicator systems. Acid production is indicated by a change in phenol red indicator when an isolate is able to utilize a carbohydrate substrate. A yellow colour is produce by Chromogenic substrates upon enzymatic hydrolysis and the enzymatic hydrolysis of fluorogenic substrates results in the release of a fluorescent coumarin derivation. Organisms that utilize a specific carbon source reduce the resazurine based indicator. These results were recorded and the log reduction was calculated for each plate at each dilution rate after and before cleaning of the surface (BD Phoenix, 2007). Sampling methods and microbiological examination (Before Cleaning) Tests using the swab method were carried out on surfaces contaminated with food borne pathogens in a food processing area. Tubes containing 10 ml of sterile buffered peptone saline solution were used to wet the swabs prior to sampling. Cotton swabs were removed from their sterile packaging and were held by the stick while they were moistened with buffered peptone saline solution, the excess broth was returned into the bottle. All surfaces were prepared in sizes of 20 x 20 cm2 for survival experiments. The swabs were rotated while in contact with the food preparation surface. After the defined area was swabbed, the swab was returned to the test tube containing the buffered peptone saline solution to dislodge the bacteria. Serial dilutions of the swab solutions were prepared and duplicate pour plates were prepared for each dilution using nutrient agar, MacConkey agar and Blood agar. The plates were incubated for 24 hours at 37oC. Sampling methods and microbiological examination (After Cleaning) The surfaces were washed with hot water and chemical detergent and then rinsed with hot water. Then the surfaces (stainless steel, marble, and wood) were disinfected with 5.25% of hypochlorite solution for 10 minutes. The surfaces were allowed to dry before sampling. The swabbing method used was as above. Duplicate pour plates were prepared for each dilution using nutrient agar, MacConkey agar and Blood agar. The plates were incubated for 24 hours at 37oC. Sampling methods and microbiological examination (Control) Some of the food borne pathogen strains used as a control for these experiments on the surfaces (stainless steel, marble, and wood), such as Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli were obtained from the Armed Forces Hospital Laboratory. For their control strains a clean stainless steel table without tiny groove was prepared as the food contact surface because it can be fabricated with a smooth cleanable finish. The table also was disinfected with 5.25 % of hypochlorite solution for 10 minutes. The surface was then washed with hot water, with chemical detergent and rinsed with hot water. The surface was allowed to dry before sampling. The test suspensions were prepared by making serial dilutions of the microorganisms in peptone saline solution. Two different levels of contamination were prepared: high contamination (approximately 106 colony forming units (CFU)/100 cm2) and low contamination (approximately 103 CFU/100 cm2), obtained by spreading 1 ml of an appropriate solution on a surface of 20 x 20 cm2 over the grid reference table. The table was allowed to dry for 15 minutes to represent the environment of food preparation area. Selective agar media were used for the enumeration of pathogens: Blood agar for Staphylococcus aureus, incubated for 24 hours at 37oC and MacConkey agar for Escherichia coli incubated for 18 — 24 hours at 37oC. Furthermore, the effects of two different contamination levels on the survival of pathogens on dry stainless steel surfaces for 24 hours at room temperature were investigated. Result Microbial survival on food contact surface (stainless steel surface) Table 1: The Colony descriptions of the microbial survival on stainless steel surface Sample Location No Nutrient Agar MacConkey Agar Blood Agar 1 No growth No growth No growth 2 No growth Pink in colour, mucoid No growth 3 No growth No growth No growth 4 No growth No growth No growth 5 No growth No growth No growth 6 Small colony with dry surface No growth Yellow colony 7 No growth No growth No growth 8 No growth No growth No growth 9 Circular in shape and small white patches Pink in colour, mucoid No Growth 10 No growth No growth No growth Table 1 shows the Colony descriptions result of the microorganisms isolated from stainless steel surface. Three of ten stainless steel surface were contaminated with bacteria before cleaning. Table 2: The colony count of the microbial survival on stainless steel Sample No. Serial ten-fold dilutions in deionised water diluents colony count (CFU ml-1) before cleaning colony count (CFU ml-1) After cleaning 2 3.2 x 102 Bacteria Not Detected 6 2.6 x 102 Bacteria Not Detected 9 4.3 x 102 Bacteria Not Detected Table 2 shows the result of the colony count obtained before and after cleaning of the stainless steel surface. Table 3: Gram stain result of the microbial survival on stainless steel surface Sample No.: 2 Gram stain result: Gram negative, rod shape Sample No.: 6 Gram stain result: Gram positive cocci Sample No.: 9 Gram stain result: Gram negative, rod shape Table 3 show the result of the Gram stain of bacteria that were isolated from the stainless steel surface before and after the cleaning stage. Sample No.: 2 Sample No. In phoenix machine: 344 Name of Bacteria detected before cleaning: Klebsiella aerogenes Name of Bacteria detected After cleaning: Not detected – Sample No.: 6 Sample No. In phoenix machine: 367 Name of Bacteria detected before cleaning: Staphlococcus aureus Name of Bacteria detected After cleaning: Not detected – Sample No.: 9 Sample No. In phoenix machine: 382 Name of Bacteria detected before cleaning: Klebsiella aerogenes Name of Bacteria detected After cleaning: Not detected Table 4: The Identification of bacteria by phoenix machine that survived on the stainless steel surface before the cleaning stage Table 4 show the result of bacterial identification that obtained by phoenix machine which was isolated from stainless steel surface before and after the cleaning stage. Microbial survival in food contact surface (Marble surface) Table 5: The Colony descriptions of the microbial survival on marble surface Sample of location No.: 1 Nutrient agar: No Growth MacConkey agar: No Growth Blood agar: No Growth – Sample of location No.: 2 Nutrient agar: No Growth MacConkey agar: No Growth Blood agar: No Growth – Sample of location No.: 3 Nutrient agar: No Growth MacConkey agar: Pink in colour, mucoid Blood agar: white, large and mucous colonies – Sample of location No.: 4 Nutrient agar: No Growth MacConkey agar: No Growth Blood agar: No Growth – Sample of location No.: 5 Nutrient agar: No Growth MacConkey agar: No Growth Blood agar: smooth, round, grayish-white colonies – Sample of location No.: 6 Nutrient agar: No Growth MacConkey agar: No Growth Blood agar: No Growth – Sample of location No.: 7 Nutrient agar: No Growth MacConkey agar: No Growth Blood agar: No Growth – Sample of location No.: 8 Nutrient agar: No Growth MacConkey agar: No Growth Blood agar: No Growth – Sample of location No.: 9 Nutrient agar: No Growth MacConkey agar: No Growth Blood agar: No Growth – Sample of location No.: 10 Nutrient agar: Small circular colonies, yellow in colour MacConkey agar: No Growth Blood agar: swarming motility Table 5 shows the colony descriptions result of the microorganisms isolated from the marble surface. Three of ten marble surfaces remained contaminated with bacteria before and after cleaning. Table 6: The colony count of the microbial survival on marble surface Serial dilutions in deionised water diluents colony count (CFU ml-1) before cleaning colony count (CFU ml-1) After cleaning Sample No.: 3 *TFTC Bacteria Not Detected Sample No.: 5 5.1 x 102 Bacteria Not Detected Sample No.: 10 #TMTC TMTC *TFTC: Too Few To Count #TMTC: Too Many To Count Table 6 shows the result of the colony count obtained before and after cleaning stage of marble surface. Table 7: Gram stain result of the microbial survival on marble surface Sample No.: 3 Gram stain result: Gram negative, rod shape Sample No.: 5 Gram stain result: Gram negative, rod shape Sample No.: 10 Gram stain result: Gram negative, rod shape Table 7 show the result of the Gram stain of bacteria that was isolated from the marble surface before and after the cleaning stage. Table 8: The Identification of bacteria by phoenix machine that survived on the marble surface before the cleaning stage Sample No.: 3 Sample No. In phoenix machine: 301 Marble Name of Bacteria detected before cleaning: Klebsiella pneumonia Name of Bacteria detected After cleaning: Not Detected – Sample No.: 5 Sample No. In phoenix machine: 326 Marble Name of Bacteria detected before cleaning: Yersinia enterocolitica Name of Bacteria detected After cleaning: Not Detected – Sample No.: 10 Sample No. In phoenix machine: 381 Marble Name of Bacteria detected before cleaning: Proteus vulgaris Name of Bacteria detected After cleaning: Proteus vulgaris Table 8 show the result of bacterial identification that obtained by phoenix machine which was isolated from marble surface before and after the cleaning stage. Microbial survival in food contact surface (Wood surface) Table 9: The Colony descriptions of the microbial survival on wood surface Sample location No.: 1 Nutrient agar: No Growth MacConkey agar: Non-lactose fermenters colonies Blood agar: White, non haemolytic colonies – Sample location No.: 2 Nutrient agar: No Growth MacConkey agar: No Growth Blood agar: No Growth – Sample location No.: 3 Nutrient agar: smooth, translucent large colonies , greenish blue growth and pigment diffuses into medium MacConkey agar: No Growth Blood agar: large brownish colonies – Sample location No.: 4 Nutrient agar: White, smooth, round colonies MacConkey agar: No Growth Blood agar: No Growth – Sample location No.: 5 Nutrient agar: No Growth MacConkey agar: No Growth Blood agar: No Growth – Sample location No.: 6 Nutrient agar: Circular, smooth, opaque colonies MacConkey agar: No Growth Blood agar: swarming motility – Sample location No.: 7 Nutrient agar: No Growth MacConkey agar: No Growth Blood agar: No Growth – Sample location No.: 8 Nutrient agar: smooth, translucent large colonies , greenish blue growth and pigment diffuses into medium MacConkey agar: slight pink colonies Blood agar: large brownish colonies – Sample location No.: 9 Nutrient agar: smooth, translucent large colonies , greenish blue growth and pigment diffuses into medium MacConkey agar: slight pink colonies Blood agar: No Growth – Sample location No.: 10 Nutrient agar: No Growth MacConkey agar: No Growth Blood agar: No Growth Table 9 shows the colony descriptions result of the microorganisms isolated from the wood surface. Six of ten wood surfaces remained contaminated with bacteria before and after cleaning. Table 10: The colony count of the microbial survival on wood surface Sample No.: Serial ten-fold dilutions in deionised water diluents colony count (CFU ml-1) before cleaning colony count (CFU ml-1) After cleaning Sample No.: 1 6.4 x 102 Bacteria Not Detected Sample No.: 3 5.3 x 102 Bacteria Not Detected Sample No.: 4 2.7 x 102 Bacteria Not Detected Sample No.: 6 TMTC TMTC Sample No.: 8 1.67 x 103 2.9 x 102 Sample No.: 9 9.3 x 102 3.6 x 102 Table 10 shows the result of the colony count obtained before and after cleaning stage of wood surface. Table 11: Gram stain result of the microbial survival on wood surface Sample No.: 1 Gram stain result: Gram negative, rod shape Sample No.: 3 Gram stain result: Gram negative, rod shape Sample No.: 4 Gram stain result: Gram negative, rod shape Sample No.: 6 Gram stain result: Gram negative, rod shape Sample No.: 8 Gram stain result: Gram negative, rod shape Sample No.: 9 Gram stain result: Gram negative, rod shape Table 11 show the result of the Gram stain of bacteria that was isolated from the wood surface before and after the cleaning stage. Table 12: The Identification of bacteria by phoenix machine that survived on wood surface before the cleaning stage Sample No.: 1 Sample No. In phoenix machine: 86 wood Name of Bacteria detected before cleaning: Acinetobacter baumannii Name of Bacteria detected after cleaning: Not Detected Sample No.: 3 Sample No. In phoenix machine: 301 wood Name of Bacteria detected before cleaning: Pseudomonas spp Name of Bacteria detected after cleaning: Not Detected Sample No.: 4 Sample No. In phoenix machine: 326 wood Name of Bacteria detected before cleaning: Enterobacter hafinae alvei Name of Bacteria detected after cleaning: Not Detected Sample No.: 6 Sample No. In phoenix machine: 342 wood Name of Bacteria detected before cleaning: Proteus vulgaris Name of Bacteria detected after cleaning: Proteus vulgaris Sample No.: 8 Sample No. In phoenix machine: 369 wood Name of Bacteria detected before cleaning: Pseudomonas aeruginosa Name of Bacteria detected after cleaning: Pseudomonas aeruginosa Sample No.: 9 Sample No. In phoenix machine: 385 wood Name of Bacteria detected before cleaning: Pseudomonas aeruginosa Name of Bacteria detected after cleaning: Pseudomonas aeruginosa Table 12 shows the result of bacterial identification that obtained by phoenix machine which was isolated from wood surface before and after the cleaning stage. Control Table 13: Survival of Staph aureus and E.coli on stainless steel surfaces Staphylococcus aureus Escherichia coli Time of swab process after contamination High contamination level (106 colony) CFU/100 cm2 Low contamination level (103 colony) CFU/100 cm2 High contamination level (106 colony) CFU/100 cm2 Low contamination level (103 colony) CFU/100 cm2 After 15 minute 2.0 x 107 1.0 x 104 1.6 x 107 5.2 x 103 After 2 Hours 1.73 x 107 9.1 x 103 8.3 x 106 1.8 x 103 After 6 Hours 1.3 x 107 3.8 x 103 2.1 x 106 No growth After 12 Hours 5.8 x 106 No Growth No Growth No growth After 24 Hours No growth No Growth No Growth No growth Table 13 shows the survival of Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli on stainless steel surfaces at room temperature (25oC) for 24 hours at two contamination level; high contamination level of (106 colony CFU/100 cm2) and Low contamination level (103 colony CFU/100 cm2). Discussion Sampling food contact surfaces is a complex problem, and the results depend on many factors, including the type of surface, the cleaning solution, the sources of contamination, and the temperature. The accuracy and reproducibility of all sampling methods are reduced when the numbers of bacteria on the surface are low. Some differences between methods are probably due to an uneven distribution of bacteria on the surface. The type of surface markedly influenced the cleaning results. For this study, nineteen selected premises were tested/studied (Ten replicate surfaces were tested; stainless steel, marble and wood, with adjacent areas being sampled before and after cleaning). The results of these studies indicate that three of ten stainless steel surfaces were contaminated before cleaning the surfaces and no surface was contaminated after cleaning, which means that stainless steel surfaces were more easily cleaned. Furthermore, three out of ten marble surfaces were contaminated before cleaning and one surface was contaminated after cleaning the surfaces, which means marble surfaces were easily cleaned but using the wrong cleaning products and the wrong cleaning techniques can damage the marble because marble is a calcium-based natural stone which is highly sensitive to acidic materials (Marble Institute of America, 2012). Stainless steel resists impact damage but is vulnerable to corrosion, while marble surfaces are prone to deterioration and may develop surface cracks where bacteria can accumulate (Leclercq and Lalande, 1994). Wood surfaces were particularly diffi Bacteria on Stainless Steel Surfaces | Experiment

Miami Dade College Studying People from Irish and Italian heritage Discussion

Miami Dade College Studying People from Irish and Italian heritage Discussion.

Read chapter 23, 33 and 34 of the class textbook and review the attached PowerPoint presentations. Read content chapter 33 and 34 in Davis Plus Online Website. Once done write an 700 words essay contracting the three study heritage.People of Irish Heritage.People of Italian Heritage.People of Puerto Rican HeritageThe essay is about the 3 culture above and must contained the following:1. Discuss the organization and the family role in every one of the heritages mentioned about and how they affect (positively or negatively) the delivery of health care.2. Identify sociocultural variables within the Irish, Italian and Puerto Rican heritage and mention some examples.A minimum of 700 words not counting the first page and reference are required, 4 evidence-based references no older than 5 years (excluding the class the class textbook)Please make sure you apply the APA guidelines to the references. 7th edition reference guide attached.Style: APAReferences: 4Double spacePlease let me know if you have any questions.Thank you
Miami Dade College Studying People from Irish and Italian heritage Discussion