Can cavitation bubbles reduce the number of non-pathogenic E. coli on an ice cream scoop and the amount sloughed off into the water around the scoop? The results supported the alternate hypothesis which stated that both the scoop and the water, when subjected to cavitation bubbles, would show a significant reduction or change of E. coli bacteria. All statistical analysis was completed using the results from a Tukey-Kramer test. Overall, the statistical alternate hypothesis (μ≠μ) was supported since the mean log of E. coli inoculated on the scoop decreased after the treatments.
The water temperature was not a significant aspect because p= 0.41, and since p > 0.05, there is not sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis (μ=μ). This …show more content…
coli bacteria went. The non-pathogenic E. coli inoculated onto the scoop was mostly found sloughed off into the surrounding water, however some E. coli was not accounted for and it was assumed they were destroyed. The most effective tanks, E with a 7.31 mean log of E.coli recovered from the water, and tank L with a 7.35 log reduction, were very similar to the least effective tank, G with 7.37 log CFU/water). The bacteria retrieved from the water was not enough data to reject the null …show more content…
Ideally, the the simplicity and cost effectiveness of cavitation bubbles to destroy bacteria would encourage better sanitation practices and lead to a lower chance of foodborne illness worldwide. While cavitation bubbles reduced the amount of E.coli on the ice cream scoop significantly after 60 seconds, it was not eliminated on the scoop entirely and the bacteria was mostly sloughed off into the water, requiring the water then be sanitized, probably by a chemical cleaner such as chlorine. Nevertheless, the application of bubbles did remove more bacteria in general than simply washing in standing water alone. The use of cavitation bubbles would be a step in the right direction of cheap and chemical free sanitization, however more testing needs to be completed before their benefits are
The water temperature was not a significant aspect because p= 0.41, and since p > 0.05, there is not sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis (μ=μ). This …show more content…
coli bacteria went. The non-pathogenic E. coli inoculated onto the scoop was mostly found sloughed off into the surrounding water, however some E. coli was not accounted for and it was assumed they were destroyed. The most effective tanks, E with a 7.31 mean log of E.coli recovered from the water, and tank L with a 7.35 log reduction, were very similar to the least effective tank, G with 7.37 log CFU/water). The bacteria retrieved from the water was not enough data to reject the null …show more content…
Ideally, the the simplicity and cost effectiveness of cavitation bubbles to destroy bacteria would encourage better sanitation practices and lead to a lower chance of foodborne illness worldwide. While cavitation bubbles reduced the amount of E.coli on the ice cream scoop significantly after 60 seconds, it was not eliminated on the scoop entirely and the bacteria was mostly sloughed off into the water, requiring the water then be sanitized, probably by a chemical cleaner such as chlorine. Nevertheless, the application of bubbles did remove more bacteria in general than simply washing in standing water alone. The use of cavitation bubbles would be a step in the right direction of cheap and chemical free sanitization, however more testing needs to be completed before their benefits are