Table A.10: Technology sophistication in Food Processing - Anti-Bacterial

||**Minimal-processing**<br>**Preservation**|**Anti-bacterial**<br>**Wash**<br>**or Soaking**|**Thermal**<br>**Processing**<br>**Technologies**|**Other**<br>**Advanced**<br>**Methods (HPP, PEF)**|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|**Functionality**|Slows<br>bacterial<br>growth<br>without<br>killing<br>pathogens,<br>preserving<br>food quality.|Reduces bacterial load on<br>food surfaces, efective for<br>surface decontamination.|Efective in killing bac-<br>teria<br>and<br>pathogens<br>through<br>heat,<br>ensuring<br>food safety.|HPP and PEF ofer ad-<br>vanced bacterial inacti-<br>vation with minimal im-<br>pact<br>on<br>food<br>quality.<br>UV<br>treatment<br>provides<br>surface-level<br>decontami-<br>nation.|
|**Integration**|Easy<br>to<br>integrate,<br>re-<br>quires basic modifcations<br>to packaging/storage pro-<br>cesses.|Simple to integrate into<br>existing<br>systems<br>with<br>easy-to-implement tanks<br>or spray systems.|Well-integrated<br>in<br>the<br>food industry, adaptable<br>to<br>diferent<br>production<br>scales.|Moderate to high integra-<br>tion into existing produc-<br>tion lines with minimal<br>adjustments required.|
|**Automation**|Limited automation po-<br>tential, requiring manual<br>checks and adjustments.|Can be automated but re-<br>quires some manual inter-<br>vention for efective appli-<br>cation.|Highly automated, ofer-<br>ing precise control over<br>processing conditions.|Fully<br>automated<br>pro-<br>cesses requiring minimal<br>human intervention.|
|**Rank**|4|3|2|1|
|**Explanation for Rank-**<br>**ing**|Lower sophistication due<br>to minimal bacterial in-<br>activation<br>and<br>reliance<br>on manual processes for<br>maintaining efectiveness.|Moderate sophistication,<br>as it is efective and easy<br>to<br>integrate,<br>but<br>with<br>lower automation levels<br>and more manual inter-<br>vention needed.|High sophistication due<br>to reliable pathogen inac-<br>tivation, well-established<br>integration in the indus-<br>try, and high levels of au-<br>tomation.|Highest<br>sophistica-<br>tion<br>due<br>to<br>advanced,<br>non-thermal bacterial in-<br>activation methods, high<br>integration potential, and<br>full automation.|
|**Technology Examples**|Modifed<br>Atmosphere<br>Packaging (MAP), Vac-<br>uum Packaging,<br>Edible<br>Coatings|Chlorine Dioxide Wash,<br>Organic<br>Acid<br>Wash,<br>Ozone Treatment|Steam<br>Pasteurization,<br>Infrared<br>Heating,<br>Mi-<br>crowave Pasteurization|High-Pressure Processing<br>(HPP),<br>Pulsed<br>Electric<br>Field (PEF), Ultraviolet<br>(UV) Treatment|
|**Cost**|$10,000 - $100,000|$500 - $20,000/year|$50,000 - $500,000|$10,000 - $2,500,000|
|**Launch Year**|1980s - 2000s|1990s - 2000s|1980s - 2000s|1990s - 2000s|
|**ChatGPT ranking**|2|2.5|4|4.5|
|**Estimated time in a**<br>**task**|1-2 hours|15-30 minutes|30 minutes - 1 hour|1-2 hours|

Source: The table draws upon various sources of information including desk research, and some lab reports to provide cost estimates of various anti-bacterial processes. *CHATGPT estimates the time for reducing the microbial load on fresh produce, following similar characteristics of a given firm. The prompt for these estimates and CHATGPT ranking is available in the appendix.