# Modernization Data Analysis and Visualization for Food Safety Research Outcomes
## 4 Type of Food Safety Experiments
### Intervention Studies  
Different interventions can be applied in the food industry as control measures to avoid pathogenic contamination. Interventions can be classified as physical, chemical, or biological. Physical interventions include temperature treatments such as hot water, steam, chilling, and thermal treatments, among others [71]. [PERSON] et al. [72] conducted a study on high-pressure processing and boiling water treatments to reduce _Listeria monocytogenes_, _E. coli_ O157:H7, _Salmonella_, and _Staphylococcus aureus_ in beef jerky. [PERSON] et al. [73] observed that steam vacuum and high-pressure water have the potential to reduce microbial loads during beef processing. Biological interventions are an approach for those consumers that look for more natural interventions such as the use of prebiotics, probiotics, antioxidants, or natural processes such as fermentation, etc. [74]. A study that described pre-and post-harvest interventions to reduce microbial loads in the beef industry established that the use of probiotics nowadays is more common and effective as an alternative to avoid foodborne pathogens [75]. [PERSON] et al. [76] conducted a project to analyze the effects of different probiotics added to poultry diet related to campylobacter colonization, successfully showing reductions in bacteria populations on ecum, feces, and other organs. Chemical interventions are widely used in the food industry, especially in the meat industry. Antimicrobial interventions such as lactic acid, Citrilow, BoiBrom, etc., are implemented to reduce any potential pathogens present on the carcass surface [77]. Intervention studies are an efficient methodology that can be applied in a processing plant to assess the effectiveness of microbial load reduction \"before\" and \"after\" treatments. These interventions can be implemented from the beginning of the process at the lairage area to the final part of the process [78]. Different antimicrobial interventions can be applied in the food industry, but it is necessary to analyze and define the expected results and evaluate which intervention will fit better. In some cases, an intervention can be successfully implemented by obtaining relying results on its efficacy; however, that same intervention does not deliver same results when applied to different matrices. [PERSON] et al. [56] evaluated the antimicrobial efficacy in an in-plant ozone intervention in variety meats (head, heart, and liver) compared to a lactic acid intervention. In both interventions, before and after samples were significantly reduced in aerobic counts and _Escherichia coli_ counts, except in heart samples of _Escherichia coli_ counts. In another study, [PERSON] et al. [62] compared Bio-Safe aqueous ozone treatment to lactic acid treatment on beef carcasses and beef trimmings inoculated with _Salmonella_ and _E. coli_ surrogates. [PERSON] et al. [79] evaluated fourteen antimicrobials on inoculatedlean beef wafers and beef subprimals with a cocktail containing four _E. coli_ O157:H7 strains; seven antimicrobials were effective in terms of microbial reduction after treatment during blade tenderization. In pork, [PERSON] et al. [65] fed alginate hydrogel beads to pigs during transportation to reduce microbial loads in the animals' feces, evaluating loads at three stages of the process: \"before fast\", \"before transportation\", and \"after transportation showing a significant difference at the \"before fast\" and \"after transportation\" sampling points. Furthermore, [PERSON] et al. [80] evaluated the effectiveness of five different antimicrobials on pork loins for up to 42 days in storage, assessing microbial loads and shelf life for both \"before\" and \"after\" treatment on each designated storage day. In poultry, [PERSON] et al.