Fresh Wash – Produce TM. 100% Natural – 100% Effective. Fresh Wash Produce TM – Health Facts. U.S. Center for Disease Control (“CDC”) These 76 million food poisoning cases result in: 325,000 hospitalizations; More than 5,000 deaths each year; and
100% Natural – 100% Effective
SalmonellaFresh Wash ProduceTM – Technical
Fresh Wash – Produce ™ is a total destruction of the cells’ membranes, resulting in vital bacterial components leaking out into their surrounding environment. This process results in a true “microbial death.”
Fresh Wash - Produce™ is based on bioflavonoid extracts from citrus fruits and natural sugars. The reaction to the citrus extracts and sugars’ combination generates a powerful and natural biocide.
The Biofilm Effect
Fresh Wash ProduceTM - Summary
Fresh Wash ProduceTM - Test Results
“Effect of Fresh Wash on the Disinfection of Bacteria in Spinach”
Dr. Chung W. Seo Food Science & Nutrition
North Carolina A&T State University
Greensboro, NC 27411
Spinach, purchased from a local farm, was immersed into 2% and 4% Fresh Wash solution (56 liters). Three trials were done for each concentration.
After each treatment for 1 min. and 5 min., a 10-gram portion of leaves was put into sterile stomacher bags with 100 ml of 0.1% peptone and then allowed to homogenize for 1.5 minutes. This step was run six times (6 replicates). From the homogenate solution, 1ml inoculums were added to 9ml peptone, and the appropriate serial dilutions were prepared for plating. From the selected dilutions, 100µl was plated into medium. Samples were analyzed for the total bacterial count, E.coli by surface plating on trypticase soy agar (TSA) and eosin methylene blue agar (EMB), respectively. Plates then were incubated at 37°C for 24 hours.
There is a significant difference in the total bacterial count (log CUF/g) between the control and 2% or 4% Fresh Star treated spinach samples for 1 min. and 5 min. (p<0.05).
The bacterial reduction for the 2/1/T sample is 2.12 log CUF/g and 2.17 log CUF/g for the 2/5/T. However, there was no difference between the 2/1/T and 2/5/T.
In the 4% treated samples, the reduction was 2.46 log CUF/g for the 4/1/T and 2.60 log CFU/g for the 4/5/T. There is again no difference between the two groups.
In the bacterial reduction, the 4% treatment is more effective than the 2%.
The similar trend of effectiveness of Fresh Star is found in the E. coli experiments. The treated samples showed much lower bacterial count than that of the control samples (Table 2).
The bacterial reduction is 1.94 log CUF/g for the 2/1/E and 2.15 log CUF/g for the 2/5/E. The E. coli reduction for the 4/1/E and 4/5/E is less than 2 log CFU/g, and lower than that of 2% samples. The reason is not clear. However, we speculated that it was due to the greater initial bacterial counts of the 4% samples.