We have added an extra cleaning and sanitizing of the entire production line zones 1-3 if an employee is found to be at risk of the virus and confirms a test positive.
Normally, we verify cleaning by zone-2 swabbing for dry ATP.
It was mentioned to use the E-coli for verification during the crisis. Can you clarify with respect to cleaning verification during the crisis- would Genus Listeria be acceptable in place of testing for E-coli for a cleaning verification to capture against a virus?
- We use Microsnap swabs and already have Listeria swabs in house with incubators. E-coli would be a different swab we'd need to purchase.
Also- immediately after the extra cleaning, prior to the sanitizing- is it still acceptable for verification using zone-2?
Hi Kristine,
I deduce you wish to increase "cleanliness" in the event of encountering a Covid-19 (CV19) positive event, This action is presumably based on the assumption/premise (A) that increased "cleanliness" will minimise the likelihood of residual virus on contact surfaces.
Here are a few ATP caveats from Hygiena -
- ATP systems do not detect viruses directly. However, COVID-19 infected material that contains biological residues will be detected by an ATP system.
- Hygiena does not produce a virus test
- Performing ATP CleaningVerification does not guarantee removal of viruses on surfaces
- ATP Cleaning Verification should be used in conjunction with CDC recommendations and guideline
https://www.hygiena....-19-atp-hc.html
afaik, there is as yet no commercial kit for detecting the CV19 virus on contact surfaces.
Viruses do not contain ATP so are not directly estimatable by this measurement.
I have not seen any reported evidence of quantitative relationships between any indicator/pathogenic bacterial species and the CV19 virus.
If one chooses to accepts premise (A), it becomes necessary to implement/validate a quantitative method to estimate the increase in cleanliness from any additional introduced cleaning procedure.
(a) One option would be to compare ATP data as you mention (eg file cl1)
(b) A second (micro) option might be to compare APC data.(compiled "standards" exist here).
(c) Use fluorescent marking (eg -
https://pubmed.ncbi....h.gov/22080657/
(d) Use mycometer (eg file cl2)
The difficulty with (a,d) may be accuracy of measurements/procedural repeatability.
cl1-evaluation cleaning- bioburden of frequently touched surfaces with ATP.pdf 704.24KB
6 downloads
cl2 - COVID19, ATP, Mycometer for assessing cleanliness.pdf 305.83KB
5 downloads
@cjewell- not swabbing in zone 1 is a debatable but sort of "accepted" fudge to avoid draconian actions due the processing material itself.