Q&A: Beyond ATP - The Next Generation of Reliable Hygiene Verification

What methods are recommended for verifying cleaning in dairy environments with low microbial activity? 

In dairy environments with low microbial activity, conventional ATP testing is often unreliable because ATP degrades into ADP and AMP during cleaning, heating, or fermentation. Since standard ATP tests only detect ATP, they may miss organic residues that remain on surfaces.

The A3 System is recommended in these situations because it measures ATP, ADP, and AMP, giving a more complete and accurate reading of total organic residue. This makes it suitable for verifying cleaning effectiveness in pasteurised milk or other low-microbial dairy environments. For a practical guide to Hygiene Monitoring at sites that handle milk and dairy products, click here.

Are there alternative methods that are more reliable for verifying cleaning when handling fresh cheese, milk, or eggs? 

Fermentation and pasteurisation reduce ATP levels, so ATP-only testing will often produce unreliable results. The A3 System detects all three adenosine molecules and provides higher sensitivity to residues from dairy fats and proteins. In some cases, rapid allergen test kits for milk or egg proteins can be used alongside A3 testing to confirm the removal of allergenic residues and further verify cleaning performance. For a practical guide to Hygiene Monitoring at sites that handle milk and dairy products, click here.

Which verification methods are more reliable in gluten and beer production sites? 

In breweries, ATP molecules quickly degrade into ADP and AMP during fermentation, meaning traditional ATP tests often miss organic residues and give false “clean” results.

In contrast, the A3 System detects all three adenosine molecules (ATP, ADP, and AMP) providing a far more accurate picture of surface cleanliness. This heightened sensitivity helps identify residues that could harbour allergens like gluten or support bacterial growth, ensuring more consistent sanitation, product quality, and audit compliance. For a practical guide to Cleaning and Sanitisation in the Brewing Industry, click here.

We have a production line for fruit juices showing a significant difference between ATP results and micro swab results. Would the A3 System provide more consistent outcomes? 

The A3 System would likely provide more consistent results on your fruit juice line because it measures ATP, ADP, and AMP, giving a more complete picture of organic residues than traditional ATP-only tests. This broader detection helps reduce false negatives and aligns more closely with microbiological results, providing greater confidence in cleaning verification. I recommend arranging an on-site trial of the A3 System to confirm its performance under your specific production conditions.

What are the benefits of using the A3 System for a bottled water manufacturer? Also, can it validate cleanliness during CIP processes or does it only work on surfaces? 

For a bottled water manufacturer, the A3 System provides a reliable way to verify cleaning effectiveness by detecting ATP, ADP, and AMP, offering greater sensitivity to organic residues than standard ATP-only tests. It can be used on both surfaces and water samples, making it ideal for validating cleanliness during CIP processes and ensuring bottling lines, tanks, and rinsing systems remain hygienic.

To confirm its performance under your specific conditions, we recommend arranging an on-site trial of the A3 System to compare results against your current testing methods and establish site-specific benchmarks.

Can the swabs be used for hand swabbing?  

Yes. A case study conducted between 2013 and 2015 at the Shiga Meat Centre explored the on-site applicability of the A3 System in meat processing plants, specifically examining its impact on the hygiene standards of operatives working on a cow slaughter line. Despite strict handwashing protocols after processing each carcass, operatives were still transferring contamination, fungi, and moisture from container to container. 

To investigate this, A3 tests were performed on the hands and fingers of each operative. With results available in approximately ten seconds, the tests provided immediate feedback, motivating workers to improve their handwashing techniques. The study also enabled the site to establish realistic cleanliness benchmarks for different work zones and to identify the most effective handwashing methods. 

By the end of the study, a follow-up using both A3 tests and traditional bacterial testing showed a reduction in E.coli detection of approximately 30%, alongside decreases in RLU values, general bacterial counts, and coliform bacteria counts. Overall, the study demonstrated that A3 testing can be an effective tool for monitoring and improving hand hygiene in high-risk food processing environments. 

Ed, since implementing the A3 System, what has been the impact on hygiene resources and costs, given that you are now detecting elements previously undetected? Have you had to perform additional re-cleans, and what revisions were made to your cleaning procedures? 

The A3 System highlighted areas where cleaning was not fully effective. This prompted us to review how the teams were performing their cleaning and the instructions they were following.  

As a result, we updated our cleaning instructions, retrained the teams, and revalidated the cleaning methods in areas where unexpected results were detected. Overall, this process has strengthened our prerequisite hygiene program. 

Is the side-by-side case study with Weetabix published or available? 

The case study is not publicly available. In my experience, the most valuable approach is to focus on studies that are directly relevant to the specific food products used in your factories, as data from other sites may not always translate perfectly. That’s why I recommend speaking with Radek to arrange a loan of the A3 unit so you can run an on-site trial yourself. You’ll quickly see that the results I’ve discussed are similar in your own environment. 

Ed, did you find the main benefit to be a reduction in false negatives, leading to fewer corrective actions, or improvements in cleaning methodologies? 

Addressing false negatives was particularly important to us. The risk with a reading of zero is that a team might assume the area is fully clean and move on, even if debris remains, potentially leading to incorrect actions. 

The A3 System allowed us to identify areas where cleaning was less effective, implement revisions to our cleaning methodologies, and ultimately strengthen our overall hygiene systems. 

You mentioned false negatives earlier. I sometimes get zero readings, is that something I should be concerned about? 

False negatives are a concern because they create uncertainty in your hygiene verification process. If your ATP-only Tests produce a zero reading, it’s important to investigate the cause. Possible reasons include a faulty swab, an issue with the unit, or residual cleaning chemicals on the surface that may deactivate the enzyme in the swab. Of course, there’s also the possibility that the surface truly is clean and contains no detectable ATP. 

However, these inconsistencies can lead to confusion and potential risk. For example, production might resume on a surface that isn’t actually clean. Even if you repeat the test, you’re still losing time, resources, and additional swabs. That’s why we recommend using the A3 System, which provides increased confidence in your results and reduces the risk of misleading false negatives. 

What factors can affect the accuracy of swab test results? 

The main factors that can impact accuracy are the presence of residual cleaning chemicals and the temperature at which the swab is used. Both have the potential to interfere with the enzyme reaction and affect the readings. 

Are there any matrices the A3 System is not compatible with? 

The Kikkoman A3 System is compatible with nearly all food production matrices. However, results can be affected by certain conditions, including: 

• Highly acidic or alkaline residues 
• Strong oxidising or disinfectant residues 
• Grease or oil 
• Products with very low biological load (e.g., refined oils, pure sugar) 

If you have any questions about the A3 System’s compatibility with the food products at your site, please share your details in the contact form below, and we will get in touch to discuss further. 

How can we confirm that the results provided by the A3 System are accurate? 

The accuracy of the A3 System is typically verified during the implementation stage. At this stage, we collect and analyse data across your testing points and create a validation document. This document demonstrates that the system is performing reliably and producing accurate results specific to your site and cleaning processes. 

Does the A3 System have a limit of detection or limit of quantification?

The A3 System does not specify a limit of detection (LOD) or limit of quantification (LOQ) in the same way as laboratory analytical methods. The system reports Relative Light Units (RLU) proportional to the total adenosine energy compounds (ATP + ADP + AMP) present on the swab.

Can the A3 System be supplied to international clients (e.g. South Africa)?  

We can support teams working in other countries through our Global Distribution Network. If you share your details via the contact form at the bottom of this page, we’ll connect you with a local distributor who can supply the A3 unit and swabs in your country. 

Is the A3 System significantly more expensive than standard ATP tests, and what are the comparative costs of A3 swabs versus other ATP swabs? 

The A3 System measures more than traditional ATP-only tests — it detects ATP, ADP, and AMP — which means the initial cost may be slightly higher. However, to provide accurate pricing for your site, we would need to discuss factors such as the number of tests you perform, and how many units and swabs are required. If you share your details below, we can prepare an official quotation based on your annual testing requirements. 

It’s also worth noting that the enhanced sensitivity of the A3 System can deliver long-term cost savings by helping you detect issues earlier in the production process and reducing the inefficiencies caused by unreliable test results. 

What is the stability of the swabs at room temperature and when refrigerated? 

Before use: Most ATP swabs need to be refrigerated, but A3 swabs are more flexible. If the swab pack is closed, it can be stored at ambient temperatures up to 25°C for up to two weeks without affecting performance. For long-term storage, refrigeration is still recommended 

After use: most customers test the swab immediately after the sample collection. However, thanks to the A3 System’s unique enzyme formulation, the swab remains stable and active for up to two hours after use, with readings remaining accurate within a ±10% tolerance. 

When should each of the three swab types (dry, moist, water) shown earlier be used? 

About 90-95% of our customers use dry swabs, as they usually collect enough soil for assessment. Pre-moistened swabs are typically recommended only in very dry environments, where additional moisture helps collect sufficient material.  

As for water swabs, they can be used for applications such as assessing water quality. Each swab type uses the same A3 technology; the choice depends on the environment and what you are testing.