Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Free Chlorine during Washing of Fresh‐Cut Leafy Greens on <i>Escherichia coli</i> O157:H7 Cross‐Contamination and Risk of Illness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Addition of chlorine-based antimicrobial substances to fresh-cut leafy green wash water is done to minimize microbial cross-contamination during processing. We developed the FDA Leafy Green Risk Assessment Model (FDA-LGRAM) to quantify the impact of free chlorine concentration in wash water during fresh-cut lettuce processing on the extent of water-mediated cross-contamination between shredded lettuce and the associated risk of illness due to exposure to Escherichia coli O157:H7. At different contamination prevalence and levels of E. coli O157:H7 on incoming lettuce heads, the model compared the predicted prevalence of contaminated fresh-cut lettuce packages and the risk of illness per serving between: (1) a scenario where fresh-cut lettuce was packaged without washing; and (2) scenarios involving washing fresh-cut lettuce with different levels of free chlorine (0 ppm, 5 ppm, 10 ppm, 15 ppm, and 20 ppm) prior to packaging. Our results indicate that the free chlorine level in wash water has a substantial impact on the predicted prevalence of contaminated fresh-cut lettuce packages and the risk of illness associated with E. coli O157:H7 in fresh-cut lettuce. Results showed that the required level of free chlorine that can minimize water-mediated cross-contamination and reduce the corresponding risk of illness depended on contamination prevalence and levels of E. coli O157:H7 on incoming lettuce heads. Our model also indicated that the pathogen inactivation rate in wash water via free chlorine was a key model parameter that had a significant impact on the extent of cross-contamination during washing and the predicted associated risk of illness.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".