Compositions for visualization of cleaning efficacy and product coverage

Abstract

The invention relates to cleaning and food processing aide applications whereby unique compositions of GRAS or food additives were developed to assess the effectiveness of cleaning procedures at various stages of the processes and to assess the delivery and adherence of food processing aides. Employing such solutions to clean and/or sanitize processing equipment provides a method to evaluate and enhance the effectiveness of procedures used to remove the respective fluorescent detergents, sanitizers or organic residues from equipment or niches and reduce contamination. Similar compositions were developed for assessing processing aide food surface coverage, contact time and adherence. In addition, unique compositions were invented that increase processing aide coverage and adherence. Quantification of the presence or absence of the fluorescent GRAS or food additive compositions produces results for validation, monitoring and/or verification of food safety intervention procedures/processes.

Claims

1. A method of processing a food, an animal hide or a hard surface comprising: applying a composition to a surface of the food, the animal hide or the hard surface to form a treated surface; visually inspecting the treated surface under ultraviolet light to detect fluorescence on a portion of the treated surface where contamination remains; after the applying and visually inspecting steps, rinsing the treated surface with water; cleaning the portion of the treated surface where the contamination was detected; reapplying the composition to the portion of the treated surface where the contamination was detected; and repeating the visually inspecting, rinsing, cleaning, and reapplying steps until no fluorescence is detected on the treated surface, the composition comprising glycerol monolaurate; riboflavin; citric acid or salt thereof; and water; wherein the composition is a solution having a pH ranging from 1 to 7, and the ratio of glycerol monolaurate to riboflavin ranges from 1:2 to 200:1; wherein the composition, when applied to the surface of the food, the animal hide, or the hard surface in an amount containing from 1 ppm to 100 ppm riboflavin, has greater adherence to the surface and covers a greater area of the surface than the same amount of the same composition which does not contain glycerol monolaurate; and wherein the composition adheres to the contamination and fluoresces under ultraviolet light after rinsing the treated surface with water.

2. The method of claim 1 further comprising the step of applying the composition to a portion of the exterior surface of the food or the animal hide if fluorescence was not detected on that portion of the exterior surface.

3. The method of claim 1 wherein the method is used in processing food and the food comprises meat, poultry, fruit, or a vegetable.

4. The method of claim 1 wherein the composition is applied to the exterior surface of the food by spray, waterfall drench, flume drench, or moat drench.

5. The method of claim 4 wherein the pH ranges from 1 to 4.

6. The method of claim 1 further comprising a cationic surfactant.

7. The method of claim 6 wherein the cationic surfactant comprises lauric arginate.

8. The method of claim 1 further comprising folic acid in a ratio of the glycerol monolaurate to folic acid ranging from 1:1 to 400:1.

9. The method of claim 1 further comprising quinine in a ratio of glycerol monolaurate to quinine ranging from 1:1 to 250:1.

10. The method of claim 1 further comprising a cleaning agent.

11. The method of claim 10 wherein the cleaning agent is a liquid soap, a detergent, a quaternary ammonium sanitizer, or a chlorinated alkaline compound.

12. A method of cleaning a hard metal surface comprising: applying a composition to the hard metal surface to form a treated surface; visually inspecting the treated surface under ultraviolet light to detect fluorescence on a portion of the treated surface where contamination remains; rinsing the treated surface with water; cleaning the portion of the treated surface where the contamination was detected; reapplying the composition to the portion of the treated surface if where the contamination was detected; and repeating the visually inspecting, rinsing, cleaning, and reapplying steps until no fluorescence is detected on the treated surface, wherein the composition comprises glycerol monolaurate; riboflavin; citric acid or salt thereof; and water; the composition being a solution having a pH ranging from 1 to 7, and the ratio of glycerol monolaurate to riboflavin ranging from 1:2 to 200:1; wherein the composition, when applied to the hard metal surface in an amount containing from 1 ppm to 100 ppm riboflavin, has greater adherence to the surface and covers a greater area of the surface than the same amount of the same composition which does not contain glycerol monolaurate; and wherein the composition adheres to the contamination and fluoresces under ultraviolet light after rinsing the treated surface with water.

Description

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

(1) FIG. 1 provides a flowchart of the process for making the dry mix version of the composition invention additive packet.

(2) FIG. 2 provides a flowchart of the process for making the hydrated version of the composition invention.

(3) FIG. 3 provides a flowchart of the present composition invention showing the utility as applied to a cleaning process.

(4) FIG. 4 provides a flowchart of the present composition invention showing the applied directly onto a food via a processing aide application.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

(5) The following detailed description represents the best currently contemplated modes for carrying out the invention. The description is not to be taken in a limited sense, but is made merely for the purposes of illustrating the general principles of the invention.

(6) Incorporation of compositions revealed in this embodiment into base materials used in sanitation and processing aide antimicrobial agents creates a utility that enhances the functionality of the base materials in which added via improved coverage, penetration and adherence of the respective base material(s). In addition, the compositions in this embodiment allow techniques to quantify the presence/absence of the composition a) on equipment, b) in niches, c) on food surfaces or d) on the surface of treated food were developed.

Example 1

(7) The current inventors tested the use of Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (STEPANOL WA-100 NF/USP) and Glyceryl Laurate (Colonial MonolaurinUltra-Pure Glyceryl Laurate) to increase the coverage and penetration of component solutions applied to processing equipment in which the solution is removed from food, feed or pharmaceutical contact surfaces prior to production. Glyceryl Laurate and a mixture of propylene glycol and ethyl-W-lawoyl-L-arginate hydrochloride (A&B Ingredients CytoGuard LA) was used by the inventors for applications associated with direct food contact and was shown to increase coverage and adherence/contact time. Food grade Riboflavin, Folic Acid and Quinine were selected from the many fluorphores available because they were shown to have synergy for the purpose of the tracer concept of the invention.

(8) All three tracer substances Riboflavin, Folic Acid and Quinine have unique molecular structures that enable them to mix into base solutions with varying polar and non polar charges. Studies by the authors of the current embodiment have also shown that the substances show an affinity for organic matter residue (e.g. proteins, fats, oils, soil, mineral deposits, etc.). Riboflavin (B2),Folic Acid (B9) and Quinine are approved food additives (Codex General Standard for Food Additives, Codex STAN 192; Code of Federal Regulations Title 21 Sec. 184.1695; Sec. 73.450; Sec. 104.20, Sec. 101.9 and Sec. 172.575). Riboflavin, Folic Acid and Quinine have a synergistic chemistry allowing them to attach to organic material and settle into niches. Experiments by the inventors have shown that when Riboflavin and Quinine are combined in solution the two GRAS or food additive fluorophores fluoresce synergistically under long and short wave ultraviolet light.

(9) TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 Visible Fluorescence Under Short (254 nm) and Long (360 nm) Ultraviolet Light 50 ppm Quinine 50 ppm Quinine 50 ppm Sulfate, Dihydrate, Sulfate, Dihydrate, Riboflavin USP and 50 ppm Visual USP in distilled USP in dis- Riboflavin USP in Fluorescence water tilled water distilled water Short Wave Slight Very Slight Moderate (254 nm) Long Wave Moderate Moderate Abundant (360 nm) Fluorescence was visually measured in dark while exciting the sample via Short and Long Wave Ultraviolet Light from 9 watt Way Too Cool Model WTC 9ML 110 at 6 inches.

Example 2

(10) Very low concentrations of Riboflavin and Folic Acid mixtures can be detected by visible fluorescence and spectroscopy (Table 2 and Table 3).

(11) TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 Transmission, Absorption (360 nm) and Fluorescence of Riboflavin (B2) and Folic Acid (B9) in Neutral and Acidic Distilled Water Solutions. 0.5 ppm Ribo- 0.5 ppm Ribo- flavin and 0.5 flavin and 0.5 ppm Folic Acid ppm Folic Acid Distilled in Distilled Distilled in Distilled Water Water Water Water pH 7.53 7.84 3.95 3.83 Transmission 100 89.7 100 89.0 Absorption 0 0.047 0 0.51 Concentration 0 0.05 0 0.05 Fluorescence Void Slight+ Void Slight Transmission, Absorption and Concentration measured at 360 nm on Milton Roy Spec 21D at 360 nm on High Intensity. Fluorescence was visually measured in dark while exciting the sample via Mid and Long Wave Ultraviolet Light from 9 watt Way Too Cool Model WTC 9ML 110 at 6 inches. The pH was lowered by adding DL-Tartaric Acid, 99%.

(12) TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 Transmission, Absorption (360 nm) and Fluorescence of Quaternary Ammonia (Quat) Base Material containing invented composition. 300 ppm 9 ppm Potable 300 ppm Quat plus 9 ppm Quat plus Water Quat/Water Invention. Quat Invention. Transmission 100 99.7 0.7 100 35.3 Absorption 0 0.001 MAXI- 0 0.453 MUM (>199) Concentration 0 0.0 MAXI- 0 0.95 MUM Fluorescence Void Void Abundant Void Moderate Transmission, Absorption and Concentration measured at 360 nm on Milton Roy Spec 21D at 360 nm on High Intensity. Fluorescence was visually measured in dark while exciting the sample via Mid and Long Wave Ultraviolet Light from 9 watt Way Too Cool Model WTC 9ML 110 at 6 inches. The pH was lowered by adding DL-Tartaric Acid, 99%. At 9 ppm Quat Invention = 15 ppm B2, 6 ppm B9, 15 ppm Surfactant, 9 ppm Emulsifier, 22 ppm Acidifier.

(13) The addition of GRAS Riboflavin and Folic Acid in distilled water or quaternary sanitizer has been shown by the authors to produce a novel and measurable composition for detection of base material and tracer presence/absence. Studies have shown that when the GRAS additives are mixed into quaternary ammonia sanitizer the resulting composition is measurable to a greater level of sensitivity than is capable with rapid quat test strips. This is important when all the base material must be removed from processing equipment.

(14) One method of detecting the presence of the food grade vitamin tracer(s) is by exciting the mixture, treated area or sample swab with ultraviolet light so that the vitamins fluoresce. Riboflavin fluorescence is the identifier for visual observations. Folic Acid fluoresces, but not in the visible spectrum. The color of light is related to the wavelength or frequency of the light. Visible lightto which our eyes are most sensitivefalls in the wavelength range of about 400 to 750 nm. In the absence of visible light and when Riboflavin is excited by long-wave ultraviolet light (maximum lambda=365 nm-below the visible spectrum) Riboflavin emits/fluoresces light waves in the visible spectrum (450 to 650) which are very distinguishable in the dark when the only other light source is from long (365 nm) and midrange (312 nm) ultraviolet light. This phenomenon enables visible detection of Riboflavin at levels as low as 1 ppm. It is well know that different compounds have unique absorption and transmission spectra. Another method of quantifying the presence of the food grade vitamin tracers Riboflavin and Folic Acid is by use of a spectrophotometer whereby wavelength absorption and transmission results of known tracers Vs control samples provide characteristic spectra analysis that can be used to determine the absence or presence with sensitivity down to 1 ppm.

(15) FIG. 1 shows the steps involved with making the composition of the dry mix composition referred to as a traceable additive packet. The dry mix composition was developed so it can be mixed with a given base material at a later date. As with all the components in the current embodiment, Certificates of Analysis including the CAS number are required for each lot to assure the additive is Food/Pharmaceutical grade. The first steps are to verify COAs for all components. Referring to FIG. 1: The preferred GRAS or food additive surfactant (1) in this invention composition is Sodium Lauryl Sulfate formulated to be 1,000 to 20,000 ppm at the point of use; the preferred GRAS or food additive emulsifier (2) in this invention is the glyceride fatty acid derivative Glycerol Monolaurate formulated to be 500 to 20,000 ppm at the point of use; the preferred fluorescent GRAS or food additives (3) in the composition of this invention include Riboflavin formulated for 100 to 1000 ppm at point of use, Folic Acid formulated for 50 to 500 ppm at point of use and Quinine formulated for 80 to 500 ppm at point of use; the preferred GRAS or food additive (4) acidulate components in this invention includes Citric Acid, Tartaric Acid and Fumaric Acid. The actual composition and ratios of the dry mix components will vary depending on the application and base material. Embodiment formulas applied to inanimate equipment and environments in which the components will be removed prior to production may use higher concentrations of the components than embodiment formulas applied directly to food(s) in which maximum limits are set by FDA or USDA. It must be realized however, that all formulas must comply with EPA and OSHA regulations at the point of use. Embodiment components in formulas applied directly to food(s) must comply with the FDA definition of a processing aide. These mentioned components are listed while other similar food grade additives or components could be used by someone familiar with the art.

(16) The composition form of the traceable additive package can be a dry mixture of the additives or it can be a liquid mixture of the additives in concentrated or ready to use form. The amounts of each additive component shall be specified for intended use. The amount of each food grade additives in the fluorescent additive packages that are to be mixed with the base materials will vary depending on the volume of base material to be mixed into.

(17) Each individual dry component is weighed 5, separately in order to achieve defined ratios for formulas developed specifically for the base material and application. Components are prepared and thoroughly mixed 6, bulk components shall be prepared for mixing by de-clumping, grinding or other means to reduce the particles sizes to facilitate thorough mixing. Each component is mixed thoroughly to disperse all constituents uniformly throughout the dry mix batch. After mixing, portions of the finished batch are packaged and labeled according to regulatory requirements and shall include use instructions 7. After packaging the products are stored in a dry cool location (8).

(18) FIG. 2 is a flow chart showing the process for making the hydrated version of the embodiment composition. The process is the same as that for the dry packets with the exception that a GRAS or food additive carrier is included as a component and the hydrated composition is to be used with or without a base material is stored in a concentrated or ready to use form. Components 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 are weighed 6, per set formulas to achieve the desired composition for the specific base material and application. For concentrated compositions of the embodiment, the GRAS or food additive surfactant (1) and or the GRAS or food grade emulsifier (2) should be mixed first into a heated GRAS or food additive carrier such as water, propylene glycol or glycerin. After the GRAS or food additive carrier, surfactant and or emulsifier are thoroughly mixed 7, the GRAS or food additive fluorescent component(s) are added and thoroughly mixed into the solution 8. The next step is to add GRAS or food additive acidulant (9) to adjust the pH of the composition to less than 4. Experiments by the authors have shown that fluorescence from the embodiment components is stable at pH ranges from 1 to 7. The authors have chosen less than pH 4 in order to inhibit outgrowth of microorganisms in the embodiment solution during storage. The preferred pH range for the composition prior to mixing with base material is pH 1 to 3. After mixing and before packaging each batch should be tested for pH, fluorescence, absorption and transmission according to specified parameters. In specification finished batches are packaged, labeled (10), and stored (11) at ambient temperature.

(19) FIG. 3 is a flow chart showing how the GRAS or food additive composition is mixed with sanitizer(s) or cleaning chemical(s) for visualization of cleaning efficacy so those trained in the art can validate or verify the hygienic condition of equipment or environments after cleaning. The steps involved with making the combined fluorescent additive and base material invention solution include; (1) select the base material and the specific volume that will be used for the application. It is important to know the composition of the base material, its physical properties and establish a set volume. For purposes of this embodiment, base material can be potable water or any of the various sanitation chemicals that has been approved for use in the food, beverage, pharmaceutical, feed industry by appropriate regulatory authorities. The base material will be approximately 95% of the total end product. Potable tap water is an excellent base material for combining with the embodiment composition to produce a solution that can be applied to equipment at any stage of the cleaning process prior final rinse. Quat sanitizers, liquid soaps and detergents have also been shown by the authors to be excellent base materials. Riboflavin mixed easily into solution when 1,000 ppm was added to KayQuat II (>1,000 ppm quaternary ammonia). Fluorescence was intense from day one through day 270 and has not diminished at the time of this publication. Similar tests were performed on Ajax Liquid Soap with Bleach Alternative with similar results.

(20) It should be noted that bench top studies with concentrate hypochlorite solutions have been shown by the authors to rapidly quench Riboflavin fluorescence. Slight fluorescence was observed for up to 4 hours when 2,500 ppm Riboflavin was added to a 30% solution of chlorine bleach and fluorescence was diminished completely after 8 hours. Highly alkaline ammonia base material produced similar results. The authors were concerned that chlorinated alkaline detergents and/or foaming cleaners would quench the fluorescence of the embodiment composition so tests were performed to determine the effect.

Example 3

(21) Tests were performed on two stainless steel meat tenderizer rollers. The tenderizer knife rollers are made of 48 circular knives with inch circular spacers in between the blades. At each blade spacer junction there is a micro niche. Two formula compositions in potable water base material were compared for performance, one with and one without surfactant or emulsifier. Formula 1 contained 750 ppm Riboflavin, 300 ppm Folic Acid as fluorescent tracers, 750 ppm of the surfactant Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, 1,500 ppm of the acidulate Citric Acid Monohydrate and 750 ppm of the emulsifier Glycerol Monolaurate (Monolaurin) in potable water base material. Formula 2 contained 750 ppm Riboflavin, 300 ppm Folic Acid as fluorescent tracers and 1,500 ppm Citric Acid Monohydrate in potable water but did not contain Sodium Lauryl Sulfate or Monolaurin. Approximately 30 lbs of raw beef cutlets were made on the tenderizer each day of the tests. The tenderizer parts were labeled part 1 and part 2. The parts were both thoroughly rinsed with potable water to remove visible meat residue. Part 1 was treated with formula 1 and part 2 was treated with formula 2. The parts were thoroughly foamed with Kay Chlorinated Foamer (SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 2%, SODIUM HYDROXIDE 1%, SODIUM CARBONATE 5-20% and COCAMINE OXIDE 1-5%). The chlorinated foamer was left on the treated knife roller parts for approximately 10 minutes and thoroughly rinsed off. The parts were evaluated under ultraviolet light (365 nm) A) after rinsing-before foaming with a chlorinated alkaline cleaner, B) after foaming and rinsing off the foam after 10 minutes and C) after scrubbing and rinsing. The tests were repeated on different days and the tenderizer knife rollers randomized. Both formulas resulted in fluorescence from the embodiment composition remaining clearly visible in the niches of the tenderizer parts, on the blades and in some of the rinse water droplets under the parts upon inspection post cleaning with the chlorinated detergent.

(22) The composition including a GRAS or food additive surfactant and emulsifier consistently showed a higher percentage of fluorescent blade/spacer junctions and the chlorinated foamer used did not significantly decrease the ability to visualize the fluorescence in the niches. Results are presented in table 4.

(23) TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 4 Meat Tenderizer % Blade Spacers Showing Fluorescence under Long Wave Ultraviolet Light Post Rinse Post Foam Post Scrub Formula Day Pre Foam & Rinse & Rinse 1 1 62.5% 52.1% 10.4% 2 1 41.7% 41.7% 14.6% 1 2 60.4% 60.4% 12.5% 2 2 58.3% 52.1% 18.8% 1 3 .sup.50% 47.9% 16.7 2 3 45.8% 37.5% 14.6% 1 4 70.8% 72.9% 20.8% 2 4 52.1% 47.9% 18.8% Formula 1 = Potable water plus 750 ppm Riboflavin, 300 ppm Folic Acid, 750 ppm Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, 1,500 ppm Citric Acid Monohydrate and 750 ppm Glycerol Monolaurate (Monolaurin). Formula 2 = Potable water plus 750 ppm Riboflavin, 300 ppm Folic Acid, 1,500 ppm Citric Acid Monohydrate.

(24) The authors have shown that the formulation pH range of the hydrated embodiment has been shown effective with regard to fluorescence between pH 1 and 7. However, a caution to consider when combining an acid to a chlorinated solution containing hypochlorite is the potential for chlorine gas production. Chlorine gas and water combine to make hydrochloric and hypochlorous acids in solution. It is important to note that the specific amounts of the individual constituents in the intended composition and the base material must be known in order to calculate the amount and concentration of each constituent in the final product. The pH of the final product should also be quantified and adjustments made to the composition to achieve the desired outcome for safety and utility. Although trials by the authors have not revealed problems with irritation from chlorine gas when mixing the fluorescent additive composition which contains acidifier(s) with chlorine sanitizer or chlorinated foaming detergents, authors recommend controlled bench top trials under a ventilated hood if strong alkaline or chlorinated base materials are to be used in order to determine the safety, half life and intensity of tracer fluorescence prior to use in a plant.

(25) From FIG. 3, select the appropriate embodiment composition 2, for the base material. The authors have developed and evaluated various formulas with regard to components, ratios and performance. Tests have shown the optimal composition for cleaning assessments to include Riboflavin, Quinine mixed into a solution of Sodium Lauryl Sulfate and Monolaurin dissolved in Propylene Glycol whereby the composition pH is reduced to less than 4 using Citric Acid. The composition can be mixed with water or remain in concentrated form until time of use whereby it can be mixed into water or other approved base materials at the appropriate ratios to end up with the desired ppm of each component at the point of use.

Example 4

(26) Tests by the authors comparing an acidified formula to a non acidified formula applied to a retail meat grinder auger showed the formula with a low pH identified unclean surfaces better than the formula that was at a neutral pH. Sections of the auger sprayed with the acidified formula fluoresced brighter than sections sprayed with the non acidified formula. Upon closer inspection and during the re-cleaning process very thin layers (almost transparent) of either mineral deposits from the cleanup water, or protein and fat from grinding beef, or a mixture of the three were determined to have fluorescent tracer attached after treatment with the invention. This investigator cannot be certain of the composition of the thin layers of fluorescent material on some sections of the auger. However, it has been observed that the formula containing Riboflavin, Folic Acid, Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, Monolaurin and Citric Acid adhered to the thin layers and fluoresced greater than the formulas without the surfactant, emulsifier or the acidifier. The test was repeated on 3 different cleaning cycles with similar results each trial.

(27) It could be hypothesized that the surfactant and emulsifier components in the formula reduces the surface tension and allows the fluorescent solution to better penetrate and spread into niches while the acidifier lowers the pH of the solution facilitating an interaction with food or mineral residue. The acidifier may also buffer the high pH of chlorinated alkaline cleaning solutions.

(28) It is very easy to change the ratio of components to fit the base material for optimal performance and least cost. For example a base material such as potable water that does not contain surfactants or acidifiers would require a fluorescent additive packet formula with a higher surfactant and acidifier percentage compared to a base material such as a soap that already contains an adequate amount of surfactants but requires an acidifier to achieve the desired results. Knowing the ingredients and the pH of the base material is very important. It should go without saying that the volume or weight of the base material is very important in order to add the correct amount of the fluorescent additive packet to meet the end product minimum fluorescent additive concentrations for adequate penetration, spreading, adherence, stability and detection.

Example 5

(29) An additional fluorescent training formula was developed to be used for sanitation employee training. The training formula resulted in a product that can be sprayed onto all equipment surfaces prior to cleaning. The addition of rice starch enables the product to adhere to all equipment surfaces regardless if they clean or unclean or have niches for the fluorescent tracers to attach or settle into. The least cost training formula contained 15,000 ppm modified rice starch (Remygel 652 FG-P) and 100 ppm Riboflavin mixed in warm potable water. The solution was sprayed onto and into a stainless steel HOBART retail meat grinder prior to cleaning with a chlorinated alkaline detergent and rinsing with potable water. When the grinder was inspected under normal lighting post clean and rinse, the test solution was slightly visible in some sections. When the same grinder was inspected using a portable long wave (365 nm) ultraviolet light (UVP ML-49) there were more than double the areas that showed that the starch/Riboflavin solution had not been removed.

(30) From FIG. 3, once the component materials are weighed out and ready to blend 3, thoroughly mix the fluorescent additive package components with the base material. The base material will comprise the significant majority of the volume of the resulting solution. When mixing the fluorescent additive package contents with a base material it is important to dissolve or disperse the relatively small amount of additives into the base solution. This can be accomplished by dissolving or diluting the additive packet contents into hot water prior to mixing into the base material. Another method for mixing the fluorescent additives into the base material is to use of a metering pump that introduces known amounts of the fluorescent additive solution into the stream of the base material. It should be noted that the additives selected for the fluorescent additive packets were chosen due to their food grade status and solubility. In addition, the components used in the current invention are capable of withstanding boiling water without losing their functionality with regard to their utility according to the embodiment.

(31) Methods for thoroughly mixing the embodiment components into solution are dependent on the base material properties, volume and the type of container used for mixing. For a small container such as a 24 ounce plastic spray bottle, the appropriate fluorescent additive packet can simply be poured into the empty spray bottle first and the base material added on top of the mixture. After the correct amount of base material is in the spray bottle, the bottle is capped and vigorously shaken until the additives are in solution. For a larger container such as a drum or bulk tank, a high speed agitator or re-circulating pump may be used.

(32) It is advised to sample the mixed solution and test it for fluorescence, absorption and transmission prior to use. The pH target should be based on application and in the range of 1.5 to 7.0 for optimal fluorescence under long (360-365 nm).

(33) Apply the combined solution 4, to the equipment or environment that will be cleaned and evaluated can be accomplished in a number of ways. On a small scale such as the spray bottle example used above, the invention may be hand sprayed onto processing equipment. On a larger scale the invention could be supplied through a centralized system with sanitation hose drops in the various areas of the processing plant that allow employees to spray the invention onto the equipment and environment prior to cleaning. The invention could also be contained in a portable pressurized tank equipped with a spray hose that could be transported throughout the plant. The invention could be applied to equipment through a clean in place system or via spray bars. Regardless of the method for application, the concept is that invention should be applied so that it has an opportunity to come in contact with soil and to work its way into hard to reach, hard to clean areas and potential niches. Thus, adequate volumes and time of application are required. In addition, depending on the process and equipment complexity, the application may be most effective while the equipment is running or after sections of the equipment have been removed for access.

Example 6

(34) Table 5 shows results from a trial performed by one of the authors that revealed the utility of combining visual and swab evaluations. Equipment in a Retail Meat Market was treated with the fluorescent invention packet that was mixed into potable water and sprayed onto the equipment prior to cleaning. After cleaning the equipment was inspected using a portable long wave UV light (UVP ML-49). In addition, the equipment was swabbed using one ply tissue KemWipes. Fluorescence inspection of the equipment occurred in the dimly lit processing area. Inspection of the KimWipe swabs occurred in a dark room. The equipment was re-cleaned and re-sampled. Results indicated the utility of swabbing equipment (i.e. the grinder motor shaft) that cannot be evaluated in a dark room.

(35) TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 5 Visual Fluorescence via Long wave Ultraviolet Light - Treatment Formula 1,000 ppm Riboflavin and Potable Water Equipment/ Equipment/ Equipment/ Equipment/ Swab Swab Swab Swab Equipment Fluorescence Fluorescence Fluorescence Fluorescence Parts Pre Clean Post Clean 1 Post Clean 2 Post Clean 2 Grinder/ Abundant/ None/None None/None NA Auger Abundant Auger Seal Abundant/ Slight/Slight None/None NA Abundant Grinder Moderate/ None/Moderate None/None NA motor Shaft Abundant Tenderizer Abundant/ Moderate/ Slight/Slight Slight/Very Moderate Moderate Slight Table Top Abundant/ None/None NA NA Abundant

(36) The cleaning of the treated equipment or environment 5, can occur immediately after application. One of the objectives for using the invention is to verify that the standard cleaning procedures performed on a daily basis are in fact effective. Therefore, the typical cleaning procedures should be performed using the same chemicals, water pressure, water temperature, physical agitation, flow rate, dwell time etc. 6, inspection and analysis to quantify the presence or absence of fluorescent additive(s) remaining on the equipment or environment can occur at any stage of the cleaning procedure. However, for purposes of this example inspection and analysis will be described for a piece of equipment after the final cleaning step and after it has passed routine visual pre-operative inspection. As previously discussed and illustrated, there are several ways to quantify the presence or absence of residual fluorescent additive tracer left on the equipment or its parts. One method is to use a portable long wave ultraviolet (UV) light in a dark or dimly lit room. For excitation of Riboflavin and Quinine resulting in fluorescence it is essential to use a long wave UV light, not only a short wave UV light. Long wave UV lights with higher watts that emit specific 360-365 nm UV light waves produce the best results when Riboflavin is used alone. For Riboflavin and Quinine solutions, the combination long wave (365 nm) and short wave (254 nm) is the light source combination that excites Riboflavin and Quinine synergistically. The darker the surroundings of the equipment being inspected for fluorescence the better since trace amounts of fluorescent residual is more evident when excited by long wave UV light in the absence of visible light. If the area to be inspected cannot be darkened, then parts of the equipment can be placed on a cart or carried into a darker area for long wave UV light inspection. The person performing the inspection should hold the UV light close (10 inches) to the points on the equipment being inspected. An inspector trained in the art of inspecting equipment for cleanliness should use similar techniques for inspecting the equipment for tracer fluorescence. The addition of Folic Acid to the composition provides utility when assessing removal of cleaning chemicals by analyzing the rinsate. Such a method is to use potable water and perform rinse tests whereby parts of the equipment are rinsed with potable water and the rinsate collected for analysis. This is an especially effective method for closed systems that are cleaned in place (CIP). For other systems, potable rinse water can be sprayed onto the inspected area and the rinsate collected. The rinsate can be collected in containers or by collecting on absorbent materials such as sponges or Kemwipes. The rinsate can be analyzed for fluorescence by shining the long wave UV light onto the sample in a dark room or small long wave UV box or enclosure. In addition, the rinsate can be analyzed via a spectrophotometer for unique absorption and transmission as was presented in Tables 1 and 2. Another method is to aseptically swab the equipment sample point with a sanitary sample sponge, KemWipe or other sanitary swab that can be analyzed under long wave UV light in a dark room or small long wave UV box or enclosure that blocks out visible light waves. In addition, the sample swabs may be processed by adding to deionized water and stomached to extract fluorescent tracer residue that may be present. The water extract can be analyzed via spectroscopy to determine the presence or absence of unique absorption or transmission caused by the fluorescent tracer additives.

Example 7

(37) In addition to using a swab technique to determine if the fluorescent additives have been removed from processing equipment, a technique referred to as a rinse test can also be a useful method. Trials were performed on a raw retail meat grinder and a ready to eat retail deli slicer to quantify the presence or absence of the tracer solution pre and post cleaning. Rinse water was collected as it ran off of the equipment at different stages and analyzed on a Milton Roy Spec 21D at 360 nm High Intensity. Samples were also visually evaluated under long and midrange UV light in a dark room. Results from spectroscopy and visual evaluation under UV light clearly indicated that the initial rinse water post treatment contained the tracer solution. When rinsate was collected after thorough cleaning the spectroscopy and UV results were not significantly different than the potable water control.

(38) From FIG. 3, inspection and analysis results 7, should be documented and reported for each piece of equipment. Reports from the investigation and analysis that show no fluorescence, transmission or absorption unique to the fluorescent additive tracer indicate that the equipment sanitary design and cleaning procedures are valid to maintain hygienic conditions. However, if inspection and analysis post cleaning show the presence of unique fluorescence, transmission or absorption then the cleaning procedures for the respective equipment are not valid and need improvement. Areas that showed presence of fluorescent additive are considered unclean and shall be re-cleaned and re-inspected until clean. The process of re-cleaning 8, should continue until inspection results indicate that there is no unique fluorescence, absorption or transmission caused by the fluorescent additive tracer. Cleaning procedures and the sanitary design of the equipment shall be re-assessed and modified until acceptable results are common practice 9, for all areas that failed the inspection or analysis. For example, if fluorescence was observed between a delron wear strip that was bolted onto the stainless steel frame of a food transport conveyor belt there is a chance that bacteria could harbor in the same niche that cannot be properly accessed for cleaning between the delron strip and the frame. If the standard cleaning procedure did not specify removal of the wear strip for proper cleaning, then either the cleaning procedures must be modified to assure that the sanitation personnel have the proper tools to remove the strip for proper cleaning; or the equipment must be re-designed so that the harborage point is eliminated or so the wear strip can be removed without special tools. Sanitarians or engineers trained in the art should be able to determine the best method for the particular process and equipment.

(39) FIG. 4. Illustrates the steps involved with making a fluorescent antimicrobial solution, applying it directly to food(s), analyzing the foods for coverage adequacy and re-assessing the process as needed. The FDA definition for processing aides must be complied with. It must berealized that compositions including base materials approved for use on inanimate equipment for the most part are not appropriate for direct food contact. Many of the fluorescent invention formulas used for sanitation application whereby the additive solutions are removed from the food contact surfaces prior to production are not appropriate for direct food application. It should be noted however that several of the key components in the current embodiment were selected because they are actually naturally occurring in many of the foods that the invention is intended to be applied. Components in the current embodiment such as Riboflavin, Folic Acid, Quinine, Citric Acid, Tartaric Acid, Ascorbic Acid, Fumaric Acid, Lauric Arginate, Glycerol Monolaurate (Monolaurin) and other similar Generally Recognized as Safe additives are approved up to specific parts per million in foods and beverages either without being labeled or provided they are on the food or beverage label. For these reasons, the selection of the composition components or processing aide formula is dependent on the specific application. Step 1, is to formulate the respective embodiment composition to be mixed in with the food grade base material. It is important to first determine the food regulations pertaining to the specific food and country for which the food is to be consumed before deciding to use the invention. For example, Lauramide arginine ethyl ester (LAE) common name Lauric Arginate is a cationic surfactant that is approved for direct food contact. Mono and di-glycerides (Monolaurin) are GRAS emulsifiers that are approved for direct food contact. Monolaurin (a mono-glyceride) is a key ingredient in the invention because it acts as an emulsifier to facilitate spreading and adherence of the invention solution to fats and oils.

(40) Processing aides have different approved usages, allowable active ingredient levels and labeling requirements. Some processing aides are approved for use on certain foods and not others. Some processing aide solutions are approved for use in some countries and not others. It is equally important to determine the respective food regulations for use and labeling of the embodiment components as food additives. An example of a good resource for approved food additives is the United States is the Office of Food Additive Safety (HFS-200) Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition-Food And Drug Administration-5100 Paint Branch Parkway College Park, MD 20740-3835-Phone: (240) 402-1200. Another example of a good reference for use of food additives is the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) an international expert scientific committee that is administered jointly by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). For example, a list of approved added Riboflavin levels by food category can be found in the CODEX GENERAL STANDARD FOR FOOD ADDITIVES (GSFA) PROVISIONS FOR RIBOFLAVINS.

(41) According to the present intervention, once the approved food grade antimicrobial base material and food grade fluorescent composition formula components approved usage and labeling requirements have been determined, the next step is to obtain Letters of Guarantee and Certificates of Analysis from the suppliers of the respective processing aides, food grade vitamins and other food grade additives intended for use in the end composition to be applied to the food.

(42) Deciding to use a dry or hydrated 1, version (concentrated or ready for use) of the embodiment product is dependent on the application, capability of the end user, storage and shipping cost factors.

(43) There are many base material choices for processing aides 2, that have been approved in 21 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for use as food additives, generally recognized as safe (GRAS) notices and pre-market notifications, and approved in letters conveying acceptability determinations for direct food contact in the food industry. Examples include but are not limited to Lauric Arginate (LAE), Lactoferrin, Peroxyacetic Acid, Octanoic Acid, Hydrogen Peroxide, Peroxyoctanoic Acid, 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1,1-Diphosphonic Acid (HEDP), Organic Acids (i.e., Lactic, Acetic, and Citric Acid). See Antimicrobials In Foods by P. Michael Davidson, John Nikolas Sofos and Alfred Larry Branen.

(44) Formulas incorporating the embodiment components must be must be developed to comply with regulatory requirements and be approved prior to use. It is very important to determine the allowable additive and antimicrobial base material active ingredient that can be applied directly on or in specific foods. The factors to consider are the concentration of the additives/antimicrobial active ingredients, the interaction effect and the total amount of the combined solution that is added to the food. The concentration is a function of the formula while the weight gain or amount of the solution picked up on the food is a function of the delivery system.

(45) Once the formula is developed and approved for use, the food grade fluorescent additive packet components and the antimicrobial base materials are measured/weighed 3, to meet the specified formula. Mixing of the components with potable water or the antimicrobial intervention base material 4, can be accomplished in batches by adding a known amount of components additive(s) directly into the water or antimicrobial solution and mixing it with a high speed blender. Another method for mixing the composition additives into water or the antimicrobial base material is to use of a metering pump that introduces known amounts of the fluorescent additive solution into the stream of the base material solution. The objective of mixing is to disperse the embodiment components/additive ingredients homogeneously throughout the water or antimicrobial base material solution that will be applied directly onto the target foods.

Example 8

(46) The mixed compositions fluorescent additives and base material solutions can be stored for later use or applied immediately. Studies by the authors have shown the fluorescence stability of the base formulas to last for long periods of time.

(47) TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 6 Riboflavin (B2), Folic Acid (B9) Fluorescence Stability @ 500 ppm B2 and 100 ppm B9 Antimicrobial Base Fluorescence Fluorescence Fluorescence Material pH October 2011 January 2012 June 2012 Lactic Acid 1.2 Abundant Moderate+ Moderate+ Lactic Acid Plus 1.0 Abundant Moderate+ Moderate+ Beefxide 1.6 NA Abundant Abundant Pera Tec (15% 2.9 Moderate+ Moderate+ Moderate Peroxyacetic Acid, 6% Hydrogen Peroxide) Cytoguard (LAE) 3.2 Abundant Moderate+ Moderate+ Fluorescence visually evaluated via Mid and Long Wave Ultraviolet Light from 9 watt Way Too Cool Model WTC 9ML 110 at 6 inches. Fluorescence Scale from Most to Least = Abundant +, 0, : Moderate +, 0, : Slight +, 0, and Void.

(48) During food production 5, the formulated embodiment solution is applied directly onto the target food(s). For example, by pumping it from a batch container to a spraying system or the invention solution can be put in a pressurized tank and delivered to spray nozzles that apply the invention solution directly onto the food. Spray nozzles applying the embodiment processing aide could be located in spray cabinets or over and under conveyor belts carrying food products. Some spray systems are inside slicers whereby the antimicrobial solution is sprayed directly onto the food as it is being sliced. Other systems use a waterfall, a flume or moat to drench the products with the antimicrobial solution. There are a number of innovative intervention systems that apply antimicrobial solutions directly onto various types of foods. One of the key factors is to know how much of the fluorescent invention solution is retained on or in the targeted food to assure the regulated maximum limits are not exceeded. Another key factor is that the intervention delivery system should be capable of adequately covering the entire surface of the targeted food. It should be noted that one of the discoveries during the research by the authors was that the addition of Monolaurin and or Sodium Lauryl Sulfate to various processing aide base materials and water greatly increased the coverage and adherence. This discovery was only made possible by the fluorescence provided by Riboflavin and Quinine combined in solution.

(49) Inspection and analysis to assure adequate coverage of the intervention solution containing fluorescent additives 6, can be accomplished by shining long wave and/or midrange and/or short wave ultraviolet lights onto the treated food surface depending on the fluorophore components and their respective synergy. The preferred method for this embodiment is to use the long wave UV light waves (365-390 nm) which excite Riboflavin molecules which fluoresce wavelengths (420-600 nm) in the visible spectrum that can be seen by the human eye during inspection. There are a number of ways to accomplish the inspection via UV light. For example, treated foods can be inspected with a portable ultraviolet (UV) light in a dark or dimly lit room. Fluorescence from food treated with the embodiment can also be seen in ambient lighting conditions if the UV light source is held very close to the food being inspected. Results are dependent on the quality of the UV light, the wattage and the concentration of the fluorescent component on the food. It should be noted that Riboflavin fluorescence is more evident when excited by higher watt UV light (peak 365 nm) in the absence of visible light. The person performing the inspection should hold the UV light close (4 to 10 inches) to the food samples being inspected. If the area to be inspected cannot be darkened, then samples of the food can be taken to a darker area for UV analysis or the food sample could be placed into a small enclosure that blocks visible light while inspecting. Surface area grids can be used to quantify the coverage area. Acceptable food safety limits can be established for the minimum surface area requirement and maximum number of defective units.

Example 9

(50) Bench top tests on produce and beef surface fat were performed where 500 ppm Riboflavin was added to several different antimicrobial base materials. The Riboflavin/Base Material solutions were applied directly to whole vine tomatoes. Tomatoes studies showed that fluorescent Cytoguard (Lauric Arginate) and Per Tec (Peroxy Acetic Acid and Hydrogen Peroxide) stayed on the tomato surface significantly longer than Lactic Acid or Lactic Acid Plus which did not appear to adhere to the tomato skin. Fluorescent Lactic Acids drained off of the tomatoes within 3 to 5 seconds whereas Cytoguard and Pera Tec adhered to tomato surfaces for minutes. This is an interesting result in light of the need for adherence in order to have time to inspect the foods after they pass through an intervention system. All of the fluorescent antimicrobials did adhere to the area of the fruit where the stem is attached. In another set of studies, honeydew melons, watermelons, cantaloupes and tomatoes were treated with a formulation composition including Monolaurin and Sodium Lauryl and a formulation composition without Monolaurin and Sodium Lauryl Sulfate. Both formulas included 500 ppm of Riboflavin. The formula containing the GRAS emulsifier and surfactant was made by dissolving them in propylene glycol prior to incorporating the Riboflavin and water. The final composition of formula 1 was 1,000 ppm Monolaurin, 1,000 ppm Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, 500 ppm Riboflavin in 3% lactic acid and water solution. Formula 2 contained 500 ppm in a 3% lactic acid solution. Results showed that formula 2 without Monolaurin and Sodium Lauryl Sulfate had very slight adherence to the surfaces of the honeydew melon or the water melon or the tomato. While formula 1 results showed 90 to 100% coverage and adherence to all three produce surfaces. Results from the cantaloupe test showed no significant difference in coverage or adherence between the two formulas.

(51) Tests on strips of beef surface fat showed excellent results for all tests. The 500 ppm Riboflavin antimicrobial solutions were poured onto the beef fat samples which were inspected under UV light in a dark area. The fluorescent antimicrobial solutions appeared to absorb into the beef fat tissue and fluoresced Moderate to Moderate+. The test was repeated months later using the same solutions in order to test the stability of the solutions with regard to Riboflavin fluorescence. The beef fat samples were suspended vertically and each solution was applied onto the samples using a disposable pipette. Results were very similar to the previous study. The fluorescent solutions absorbed into the fat tissue. As the solutions dripped down with gravity they left fluorescent traces wherever they touched.

(52) Tests were performed on raw chilled beef (Top Sirloin Sub Primal) and skin on (Whole Broiler Chicken) and skin off (Boneless Chicken Breast) chilled poultry to determine the effect of adding Monolaurin (food grade Glyceryl Laurate-mono glyceride) to Riboflavin and Folic Acid in 4 different pathogen intervention solutions. The compositions were mixed by simply adding the dry Riboflavin, Folic Acid and ground Monolaurin into the processing aide base materials. It should be noted that not all of the Monolaurin went into solution as indicated by wavy precipitate remaining in the bottom of the spray bottles. Two different formulas for each intervention were equally sprayed (5 sprays) onto the beef or chicken and measured under UV light. Tables 7, 8 and 9 present results which show the addition of Monolaurin (ML) significantly improved coverage percent for Lactic Acid and Beefxide applied to chilled beef surface fat and skin on chilled poultry.

(53) TABLE-US-00007 TABLE 7 Raw Chilled Beef Intervention Coverage on Surface Fat - 1,000 ppm Riboflavin and 200 ppm Folic Acid with and without 1,000 ppm Monolaurin (Glyceryl Laurate) Cover- Cover- Fluores- age Fluores- age cence Antimicrobial with cence without without Base Material pH ML with ML ML ML 2.5% Lactic Acid 2.79 89% Moderate 64% Moderate+ (Purac FCC 88) 5% CytoGuard LA 7.02 95% Moderate 85% Moderate+ (A&B Ingredients) 2.5% Beefxide 2.9 90% Moderate 70% Abundant (Birko) 5% CytoGuard LA 2.79 97% Moderate 90% Abundant (A&B Ingredients) plus Citric Acid Coverage measured visually from video tape analysis using a grid as a reference. Fluorescence Scale from Most to Least = Abundant +, 0, : Moderate +, 0, : Slight +, 0, and Void.

(54) TABLE-US-00008 TABLE 8 Raw Skin on Chicken Intervention Coverage - 1,000 ppm Riboflavin and 200 ppm Folic Acid with and without 1,000 ppm Monolaurin (Glyceryl Laurate) Cover- Cover- Fluores- age Fluores- age cence Antimicrobial with cence without without Base Material pH ML with ML ML ML 2.5% Lactic Acid 2.79 95% Abundant 80% Abundant (Purac FCC 88) 5% CytoGuard LA 7.02 100% Abundant 100% Abundant (A&B Ingredients) 2.5% Beefxide 2.9 90% Abundant 80% Abundant (Birko) 5% CytoGuard LA 2.79 100% Abundant 100% Abundant (A&B Ingredients) plus Citric Acid Coverage measured visually from video tape analysis using a grid as a reference. Fluorescence Scale from Most to Least = Abundant +, 0, : Moderate +, 0, : Slight +, 0, and Void.

(55) TABLE-US-00009 TABLE 9 Raw Skin off Chicken Breast Intervention Coverage - 1,000 ppm Riboflavin and 200 ppm Folic Acid with and without 1,000 ppm Monolaurin (Glyceryl Laurate) Cover- Cover- Fluores- age Fluores- age cence Antimicrobial with cence without without Base Material pH ML with ML ML ML 2.5% Lactic Acid 2.79 100% Abundant+ 100% Abundant (Purac FCC 88) 5% CytoGuard LA 7.02 100% Abundant 100% Abundant (A&B Ingredients) 2.5% Beefxide 2.9 100% Abundant 100% Abundant (Birko) 5% CytoGuard LA 2.79 100% Abundant 100% Abundant (A&B Ingredients) plus Citric Acid Coverage measured visually from video tape analysis using a grid as a reference. Fluorescence Scale from Most to Least = Abundant +, 0, : Moderate +, 0, : Slight +, 0, and Void.

(56) These tests indicate the utility of using the fluorescent composition to determine coverage and adherence. The tests also show the improvement in surface coverage when the GRAS or food additive emulsifier Monolaurin is added to the processing aide base material. Processing aides such as those typically used in the beef industry intervention sprays (i.e. Organic Acid Sprays) could benefit from this embodiment. The utility of a composition including Riboflavin and Monolaurin is great because both are naturally occurring in beef. The application of an improved processing aide with visualization qualities could provide an ongoing food safety improvement for the industry. For example, Beef trim is routinely sampled for E. coli O157:H7 testing. The trim sampling protocol is to excise surface samples (N60/10,000 lbs). The protocol is to excise the surface because the surface of the carcass is where the pathogen contaminates the meat, typically from the hide, fecal or ingesta, not on the interior of the meat. If the invention was used whereby the antimicrobial organic acid carcass spray contained the fluorescent additive solution then the excised surface samples collected for E. coli O157:H7 testing could be placed under UV light and inspected to verify carcass coverage. Data could be collected and statistics calculated to determine if there was a correlation between lack of coverage and positive E. coli O157:H7 trim samples. This could be an ongoing verification procedure that could provide valuable feedback to operations and engineering.

(57) Poultry processors use antimicrobial interventions to control Salmonella and Campylobacter which are hazards likely to occur in raw poultry. Adequate coverage is important to the effectiveness of the interventions. Monolaurin added to Lactic Acid improved the coverage and adherence of the composition and the Riboflavin/Folic Acid tracers allow coverage to be measured. An inspector trained in the art of inspecting food surfaces for defects should use similar techniques for inspecting the food surfaces for tracer fluorescence. In addition, food surface samples may be processed by extracting the water components from the food surface in order to analyze for absorption and transmission.

Example 10

(58) Studies by the authors have also shown that the fluorescent antimicrobial applied to beef trimming can be identified after the trimmings are ground and formed into patties. Tests were conducted at a retail meat market whereby custom grinds were produced for research. Fresh bench trim was sprayed with a 500 ppm Riboflavin and Cytoguard solution. Four tenths of a pound of the fluorescent antimicrobial solution was sprayed onto ten pounds of beef trim. Trim fluoresced when inspected under long wave UV light. The trim was ground twice through a .sup.th inch plate and patties were formed. Patties were inspected under visible and long wave UV light. Under visible light there was no perceptible difference in appearance vs. control. Under long wave UV light Riboflavin fluorescence was obvious as it was observed scattered throughout the ground beef patties. Patties were frozen and evaluated at month 3 and month 6. Riboflavin fluorescence was detected at both 3 and 6 months with scores of moderate fluorescence.

(59) Inspection and analysis results 7, should be documented and corrective actions implemented as needed to improve the food safety systems. Specific times, stages in the process, locations on the food target etc, where fluorescence, unique absorption or transmission was absent must be quantified and considered as an intervention system failure. Foods or sections of the food targets that do not show presence of antimicrobial fluorescent additive solution are considered at risk and 8, should be re-treated with the antimicrobial solution and re-inspected. The process of re-treating should be closely monitored to avoid exceeding the regulatory limits for antimicrobial or fluorescent additives.

(60) Failed inspection results shall be reported to and utilized by plant management to modify the intervention processes as needed to improve the food safety system(s). Passing inspection results shall be reported to and utilized by plant management to verify and validate that the intervention systems are operating as designed.

Example 11

(61) Studies by a third party microbiology lab have shown that the embodiment formulas exhibit and improve antimicrobial properties (Table 10). Enriched samples of Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella (Controls) were treated with embodiment formulas developed for point of use application. Formula 1 was comprised of Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (1,000 ppm), Monolaurin/Glyceryl Laurate (1,000 ppm) and Riboflavin (500 ppm) blended into potable water and acidified to pH 2.8 with Citric Acid Monohydrate. Formula 2 was comprised of Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (1,000 ppm), Monolaurin/Glyceryl Laurate (1,000 ppm) and Riboflavin (500 ppm) blended into an approved quaternary ammonium (300 ppm) sanitizer/disinfectant base material. Formula 3 was the same as formula 2 with the addition of 100 ppm Folic Add, Formula 3 was tested on a different day which explains the different control inoculums levels.

(62) Results show log reductions for all formulas tested with the greatest log reductions occurring when 300 ppm quat sanitizer was used as the base material.

(63) TABLE-US-00010 TABLE 10 Comparative log reductions of Listeria monocytogenes (LM) and Salmonella (SAL) treated with embodiment processing aide solutions. Log LM Recovered/ Log SAL Recovered/ LM Log Reduction SAL Log Reduction 15 second Control 6.3/0.0 6.3/0.0 Formula 1 4.0/2.3 6.1/1.7 Formula 2 1.3/5.0 0.8/5.5 Control 5.8/0.0 5.6/0.0 Formula 3 <2.0/3.8 <2.0/3.6 10 minutes Control 7.8/0.0 7.8/0.0 Formula 1 2.5/5.3 2.0/5.8 Formula 2 2.5/5.3 2.0/5.8 Control 5.8/0.0 5.8/0.0 Formula 3 <2.0/3.8 <2.0/3.6

Example 12

(64) Concentrated embodiment formulas were developed to be diluted at the point of use. Studies by a third party microbiology lab have shown that the embodiment formulas exhibit and improve the performance of existing antimicrobials. Enriched samples of Listeria monocytogenes, E. coli O157:H7 and Candida (Controls) were treated with 2 different embodiment formulas (1 & 2) and one commercial food processing aide. Formula 1 was a concentrated mixture of Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (20,000 ppm), Monolaurin/Glyceryl Laurate (20,000 ppm) and Riboflavin (500 ppm) blended into Propylene Glycol and acidified to pH 2.5 with Citric Acid Monohydrate. Formula 2 was Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (20,000 ppm), Monolaurin/Glyceryl Laurate (20,000 ppm) and Riboflavin (500 ppm) blended into a commercial antimicrobial processing aide containing Lauric Arginate (LAE) base solution and adjusted to a pH of 2.2 using Citric Acid Monohydrate. The commercial processing aide (LAE) was also tested without modification. All formulas were diluted (1 part mixture to 20 parts water) to achieve 5% solutions at the point of use. Formulas were challenged into known Listeria monocytogenes (LM), E. coli O157:H7 (O157) and Candida (CAN) inoculums and log reductions measured at 15 seconds and 10 minutes.

(65) Results presented in Table 11 show that formulas 1 and 2 reduced LM by more than 2.5 logs (36,100%) at 15 seconds of contact. After 10 minutes of contact formula 1 had reduced LM by 4.3 logs and formula 2 by 5.2 logs. Both embodiment formulas reduced LM more than the commercial antimicrobial food processing aide (LAE Base) which only reduced LM by 1.1 and 1.6 logs at 15 seconds and 10 minutes respectively. At 15 seconds, E. coli O157:H7 reduction was similar for formula 1 and LAE Base (1.4 log) while formula 2 showed a 2.1 reduction. After 10 minutes formula 2 showed a much greater log reduction (5.8) compared to formula 1 and LAE Base (1.7). Formula 2 also outperformed formula 1 and LAE for log reduction of Candida at 15 seconds and 10 minutes showing a very significant comparative decrease (10.sup.1.9 or a 79 times).

(66) TABLE-US-00011 TABLE 11 Comparative log reductions of Listeria monocytogenes (LM), E. coli O157:H7 (O157) and Candida (CAN) treated with 5% processing aide solutions. Log LM Recov- Log O157 Recov- Log CAN Recov- ered/LM Log ered/O157 Log ered/CAN Log Reduction Reduction Reduction 15 second Control 7.1/0.0 6.8/0.0 6.1/0.0 Formula 1 4.5/2.6 5.4/1.4 5.2/0.9 LAE Base 6.0/1.1 5.4/1.4 5.5/0.6 Formula 2 4.6/2.5 4.7/2.1 3.6/2.5 10 minutes Control 7.2/0.0 6.8/0.0 6.0/0.0 Formula 1 2.9/4.3 5.1/1.7 4.8/1.2 LAE Base 5.6/1.6 5.1/1.7 4.8/1.2 Formula 2 2.0/5.2 1.0/5.8 2.9/3.1

Example 13

(67) Formulas were tested to determine log reduction differences when embodiment GRAS additive solutions of Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, Monolaurin/Glyceryl Laurate and Riboflavin were added to Lactic Acid. An approved commercial lactic acid solution designed to be diluted 1 part to 40 parts water was used as a base solution. Formula 1 was comprised of 20,000 ppm Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, 20,000 ppm Monolaurin and 500 ppm Riboflavin blended into a 90% Lactic Acid/10% Propylene Glycol solution. Formula 2 had 30,000 ppm Monolaurin/Glyceryl Laurate and 500 ppm Riboflavin blended into a 90% Lactic Acid/10% Propylene Glycol solution. The Lactic Acid base and the 2 embodiment formulas were diluted 1 part to 40 parts water to achieve a 2.5% solution at the point of use. Enriched Listeria monocytogenes (LM) and E. coli O157:H7 (O157) samples were treated with the 3 different solutions and results measured after 15 seconds and 10 minutes.

(68) Results (Table 12) indicated that LM reduction was greatest at 15 seconds when treated with 2.5% Lactic Acid base without Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, Riboflavin and/or Monolaurin/Glyceryl Laurate. At 10 minutes the LM log reductions were similar for all three solutions. E. coli O157:H7 reduction at 15 seconds was greater for the 2.5% embodiment test formulas 1 & 2 compared to the 2.5% Lactic Acid base. However at 10 minutes, the 2.5% Lactic Acid and 2.5% Formula 1 solutions both produced 6.1 log reductions. Formula 2 produced a 4.8 log reduction.

(69) TABLE-US-00012 TABLE 12 Comparative log reduction of Listeria monocytogenes (LM) and E. coli O157:H7 (O157) treated with 2.5% processing aide solutions. Log LM Recovered/ Log O157 Recovered/ Reduced Reduced 15 second Control 7.0/0.0 7.1/0.0 Lactic Acid Base 2.0/5.0 6.9/0.2 Formula 1 5.1/1.9 1.5/5.6 Formula 2 6.3/0.7 3.6/3.5 10 minutes Control 7.0/0.0 7.1/0.0 Lactic Acid Base 1.6/5.4 1.0/6.1 Formula 1 1.0/6.0 1.0/6.1 Formula 2 1.9/5.1 2.3/4.8

(70) The forgoing summary, detailed description, and examples provide a basis for understanding the invention. Since the invention can comprise a variety of embodiments, the above information is not intended to be limiting. It will become apparent to those trained in the art that modifications and variations may be made without deviating from the scope and spirit of the present invention as described and claimed.