20 replies to this topic

[WayneFiorelli]

Hi all,

 

I thought I remember this being discussed as a must in my SQF Training course, but I can't seem to recall. It is difficult to get a passing number on the floors, even after a thorough cleaning. So, is this a must, or have I been wasting my time?

 

Thanks all.

 

~Wayne

[RMAV]

I wouldn't unless you have some insanely high-risk process where the floor must be practically sterile...

[WayneFiorelli]

Thanks for the quick response. Me and my SQF crony were scrubbing the floor so hard and coming back with fail after fail. Concrete just holds it's dirt. haha

[QAGB]

Hi all,

 

I thought I remember this being discussed as a must in my SQF Training course, but I can't seem to recall. It is difficult to get a passing number on the floors, even after a thorough cleaning. So, is this a must, or have I been wasting my time?

 

Thanks all.

 

~Wayne

 

 

I wouldn't unless you have some insanely high-risk process where the floor must be practically sterile...

 

 

Hi Wayne,

 

I agree with RMAV. We don't ATP swab floors in our facility (although low-risk). We sponge swab drains to test for pathogens, but ATP swabbing the floor is pretty much useless, unless you have a process like RMAV stated.

 

QAGB

[jannel]

unless, your food product is directly placed on the floor. You'll be needing ATP swab on equipment and facility in direct contact with food products. Though, cleaning on floor is really a must.

[Tony-C]

I wouldn't waste time and money using ATP to swab a floor, it is usually too sensitive and may not give consistent results on some surfaces.

 

Periodic TVC & Entero swabs should be sufficient to give an indication of the effectiveness of your floor cleaning.

 

Kind regards,

 

Tony

[esquef]

As part of a reasonable Environmental Monitoring Program I'd agree with comments above and swab drains periodically. If you do have a positive you can out a corrective action plan in place to vector out from there to determine a root cause if possible.

[Tony-C]

I wouldn't waste time and money using ATP to swab a floor, it is usually too sensitive and may not give consistent results on some surfaces.

 

Periodic TVC & Entero swabs should be sufficient to give an indication of the effectiveness of your floor cleaning.

 

Kind regards,

 

Tony

 

 

As part of a reasonable Environmental Monitoring Program I'd agree with comments above and swab drains periodically. If you do have a positive you can out a corrective action plan in place to vector out from there to determine a root cause if possible.

 

Thank you Esquef, any adverse result should of course be followed up (with pathogens swabs as well) but ATP testing of floors is not general practice and largely irrelevant.

 

Kind regards,

 

Tony

[esquef]

Thank you Esquef, any adverse result should of course be followed up (with pathogens swabs as well) but ATP testing of floors is not general practice and largely irrelevant.
 
Kind regards,
 
Tony

Yes Tony. I agree about the use of ATP swabs and should have made my post more clear. By swabbing drains I was referring to pathogen swabbing. IMO ATO has no correlation with pathogen swab micro results.

[CaliforniaFS]

On my food safety scheme it is only required on food contact surfaces.

Check yours. I haven't heard of it being used on floors.

[johntstuart]

We require ATP swabs on food contact surfaces at my facility.  All other Zones (including the floor) only use bacterial swabs.

 

I also agree with the earlier posts that state that ATP swabs shouldn't be used on the floor unless your process requires near-total sterility at one or more points.

[Charles.C]

We require ATP swabs on food contact surfaces at my facility.  All other Zones (including the floor) only use bacterial swabs.

 

I also agree with the earlier posts that state that ATP swabs shouldn't be used on the floor unless your process requires near-total sterility at one or more points.

 

Hi john,

 

I don't understand why you use ATP swabs on fcs rather than "bacterial" ? Time ?

 

i don't understand why you (bacterially) swab the floor unless part of an ESP such as a drain ?

[johntstuart]

Hi john,
 
I don't understand why you use ATP swabs on fcs rather than "bacterial" ? Time ?
 
i don't understand why you (bacterially) swab the floor unless part of an ESP such as a drain ?

Allow me to clarify. Both ATP and bacterial presence (aka identificying the presence of listeria, salmonella, etc) swabs are required on FCS.

And yes, the swabbing of the floor is a part of our Environmental Monitoring program.

[Charles.C]

Allow me to clarify. Both ATP and bacterial presence (aka identificying the presence of listeria, salmonella, etc) swabs are required on FCS.

And yes, the swabbing of the floor is a part of our Environmental Monitoring program.

 

Hi John,

 

Thanks for the clarity.

 

I assume "floor" = specific locations, eg drainage points.

[johntstuart]

You are correct.

[GMO]

ATP swabs are not the be all and end all.  They are not always accurate and can give a "pass" result even when visible debris is present (although of course the presence of visible debris should mean a fail.)

 

I personally wouldn't swab floors for TVC either but I would swab them for appropriate pathogens, e.g. Listeria.

 

For those who swab floors for TVCs / Enteros, what limits do you have?

[cwaikong]

I am here because my manager just added floor and gumboots to the daily ATP swab list. Maybe I shoud show this post to her. :)

[TimG]

I am here because my manager just added floor and gumboots to the daily ATP swab list. Maybe I shoud show this post to her. :)

 

I guess that depends on 'why' and 'where'. Is it a super high risk area that requires footwear be sanitized or special footwear/clothing be used? Is the area routinely cleaned and the testing being done just post cleaning before ANY foot traffic?

If not..I imagine you are going to get a lot of high readings..

[jfrey123]

ATP for floors seems a lotta bit overkill to me, but it would come down to your internal risk assessments.  We test our floors for pathogens of concern per our EMP, but for general cleanliness the visual inspection is our standard for what makes a clean concrete floor in production and storage areas.

 

Sharing an experience we had with Hygiena EnsureTouch luminometers where this can be relevant.  I talked about it on here a couple years back, but we had a facility in our corporate chain getting a suspicious amount of 0 RLU pass readings.  Enough that our VP of FSQA went out and observed the process.  He witnessed them swab visually dirty surfaces (thin film of leftover grime), get a 0 RLU, mark it as clean and move on.  We were baffled why it would read 0, so they went nutty and swabbed hands and dirty shoes and, yes, even the floor and got 0 RLU.  Re-re-verified calibration, swabbed dirty surfaces to the point the swab vial was brown with chunks in it, machine returned a 0 RLU pass.  Tech guru for Hygiena responds via phone call basically, "Oh yeah, if it's too filthy for the light to penetrate the vial to the sensor, the machine can't give a value so it'll say 0.  It's supposed to be visually clean before you even consider swabbing it so it can shine the light through trace amounts of contaminates."

 

Long story short @cwaikong, if your boss actually makes you start swabbing floors, be very suspicious of any 0 RLU readings you might get.  But otherwise I expect that floor to return sky high numbers no matter how you clean it.

[Setanta]

I was thinking along these lines, also @jfrey123. It may be a method of confirming the low numbers by swabbing a place that will certainly get you a high number.

[GMO]

I guess that depends on 'why' and 'where'. Is it a super high risk area that requires footwear be sanitized or special footwear/clothing be used? Is the area routinely cleaned and the testing being done just post cleaning before ANY foot traffic?

If not..I imagine you are going to get a lot of high readings..

 

Even then.  Why?  I have worked in super high risk areas.  Nobody is doing this.