1 reply to this topic

[Brendo]

Hi All,

 

First post, so would like to introduce myself I'm Brendan a Quality Coordinator based in Australia.

The site I currently work at are BRC certified.

 

I am wondering if anyone has any advice or has used both the 3M Luminometer and/or the Hygiena one in relation particular to ATP but also

in Hyginea's case they also have claims of pathogen capabilities how ever what I have read is alot of false positives. My main point of view

is that ATP will be brought in to replace current TPC swabbing we do, but keep the pathogen swabbing sent off site to an independent NATA 

labaortatory but if hyginea system works and can reliably get pathogen results just have as a more eyes on quick approach and not replace NATA

results as per requirements.

 

Just want to see others thoughts & experiences.

 

Thanks in advance   

 

 

[012117]

Hi, Brendo.

 

What product do you produce? I would not suggest you replace  TPC and pathogen with ATP swabs. If you prefer rapid method, ATP can  be used on a more frequent basis and supported by TPC swabs on a less frequent one (but with a validation of course or correlation study). In our case previously, we go away with using ATP swabs (due to cost) provided we throughly validated and verified our cleaning schemes. We also increased the training (and competency) of people related to cleaning SOPs as I think it will be better to spend resources on checking robustness of procedures rather than frequent sampling.

 

We have used both btw, during the time that we have used it, hygiene provided better trend review than 3m but we have used 3m due to cost.