14 replies to this topic

[LILDANNY50]

Hi All, 

 

Has anyone used the InSite Rapid Enviromental Listeria Species Tests by Hygiena. 

 

This would save us in lab costs vs sending our listeria tests to a lab. 

 

Does anyone have any pros/cons of these? Or any issues with BRC or UK retailers having a problem using these over a traditional lab swab? 

 

Of course I would validate their use annually with lab swabs too, but on a weekly basis this could save alot. 

 

Many thanks in advance for any input. 

 

Thank you.

 

 

[nwilson]

We use them currently as an indicator swab.  They are easy to use and we haven't had any issues with SQF (can't speak on BRC/UK).  We still send out quarterly swabs to the lab as this frequency was determined as part of our EMP risk assessment.  

[zanorias]

I have used these, but not instead of lab tested swabs. The Hygiena rapid swabs are great for being quick and cheap, but the lack of numeration and species identification is the flaw and reason I wouldn't use these in the scheduled EMP. If there was listeria present I wanted to know how much and which species, considering the differences between mono/other and the reality of expecting 0 listeria in a meat processing factory.

 

However, I found the swabs very useful for ad hoc investigation; you can test a lot of locations and have results back within 48 hours. Handy in testing after re-cleaning following a hit on the EMP. BRC and 2 UK retail customers were happy with this use as long as it is properly validated alongside lab tested samples.

 

Edit - also, with BRC in mind, if you are testing on-site make sure it is fully segregated from production and storage areas as per 5.6.2.1.

Edited by zanorias, 20 March 2020 - 04:54 PM.

[Juribe]

We implemented these last year and have since used them to replace the lab swabbing we previously did. We still send finished products to labs to test for micros and pathogens, but use the Hygiena swabs for our environmental monitoring program. In the last year we have saves thousands of dollars because of them, great products.

[mcright]

We use them. They are very easy to use and practical. If you want to test for L.monocytogenes they have InSite L. mono Glo, but you need an ultraviolet inspection lamp. We continue to send our final product to an external laboratory for pathogen testing.

[kettlecorn]

We use them too, along with the Salmonella tests. We're pretty much in the situation Juribe is in. We send out finished product for testing before it is released, so right now the Hygiena is a monitoring system that allows us to catch and diagnose any problems preventively. I also would not hesitate to use third-party labs if an issue came up. 

[kettlecorn]

If there was listeria present I wanted to know how much and which species, considering the differences between mono/other and the reality of expecting 0 listeria in a meat processing factory.

 

I should mention we do not process meat, hence why I'm not concerned in our facility about using Hygiena (almost) exclusively. If your facility expects a lot of positives, the Hygiena swabs won't really tell you anything, since they can't distinguish between different strains of Listeria. 

[Charles.C]

Same day results for Listeria are available with Neogen technology but an in-house lab required + deep pockets.

 

https://www.neogen.c...nalyte;listeria

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/30305206

[andrewmachon]

We have recently started to use this equipment. Whilst conventional techniques clearly have many advantages, I wanted to get a fast result to help with identifying areas where we needed to focus, implement corrective action accordingly and also to help build the monitoring plan. Micro testing here in Hong Kong is expensive. The Hygiena equipment has helped to focus and implement immediate solutions where the results were positive.

 

We have implemented corrective action based on the Hygiena result, reswabbed using Hygiena and when under control ( ie. repeated negative results), got this confirmed using the external laboratory. 

[Charles.C]

We have recently started to use this equipment. Whilst conventional techniques clearly have many advantages, I wanted to get a fast result to help with identifying areas where we needed to focus, implement corrective action accordingly and also to help build the monitoring plan. Micro testing here in Hong Kong is expensive. The Hygiena equipment has helped to focus and implement immediate solutions where the results were positive.

 

We have implemented corrective action based on the Hygiena result, reswabbed using Hygiena and when under control ( ie. repeated negative results), got this confirmed using the external laboratory. 

Hong Kong follows US Listeria environmental control logic for Food ?

 

I was under the impression that the USA is unique as regards its "Listeria Program".

[andrewmachon]

We don't have any specific rules or requirements in place for listeria (environmental) in Hong Kong. We don't follow any US program.

 

I have implemented a program ... in the absence of any customer and / or state guidance.

 

So far .. its working well ! And the rapid test to deal with the issue, and a confirmation using conventional micro, is really beneficial

[Charles.C]

We don't have any specific rules or requirements in place for listeria (environmental) in Hong Kong. We don't follow any US program.

 

I have implemented a program ... in the absence of any customer and / or state guidance.

 

So far .. its working well ! And the rapid test to deal with the issue, and a confirmation using conventional micro, is really beneficial

One difficulty is with the interpretation of "Listeria" from a pathogenic POV. It's a bit like Presumptive Coliforms except  at least it's  in the right Genus.

 

A second "difficulty" is that USA may be unique in, afaik, applying a zero L.mono tolerance for all types of RTE products. Or do Hong Kong do the same ?

[shannonk]

Hi everyone, 

 

I'm Shannon Bullard, Product Manager at Hygiena.  As others have mentioned, we recently launched a new & improved version of our InSite Listeria product.  For those of you outside of the US where there is a zero tolerance for L.mono and where environmental testing for mono is more widely accepted we have an easy to use, all-in-one device that allows you to test for Listeria species and then use a blacklight/torch to confirm presence or absence of L. mono in the Listeria positive screen.  In the development of the L.mono Glo device we also improved our enrichment broth of our traditional InSite Listeria device AND developed technical application notes to show that you can confirm out of the enrichment broths on our BAX® System PCR tests.  

 

Here's more information on L.mono Glo:  https://www.hygiena....oglo-other.html

[Padfoot]

I've been trying to use internal testing with the hygiena listeria swabs but the only problem is that when I send out samples to a 3rd party lab and compare the results they haven't been identical to the hyginea swabs. I'm not sure why

[shannonk]

Hi @Alemv15.  There are a number of reasons that your samples sent to a 3rd party lab might not match the swabs.  

 

What surfaces are you swabbing (food contact, non-food contact, zone)?  This is important because there are some cross-reactors that can be found in 'dirtier' areas and cause a higher number of presumptive positives.  We recently released a new and improved version of the InSite Listeria test which further improves our exclusivity and reduces the impact of these cross-reactors.  I would reach out to your rep and ask to give it a try.  This new version is now certified by AOAC (the previous had AOAC on the broth - this one has the entire method certified).  

 

What method is being used for confirmatory testing?  Are you sending the InSite device out for confirmation, or taking a separate swab?  

 

Hopefully we can help you be more successful in your testing and reduce the number tests that don't align.

 

Shannon