Webinar: Beyond ATP - The Future of Hygiene Verification

The following article provides an overview of a recent Klipspringer webinar, hosted in partnership with BRCGS. The session explored the evolution of cleaning verification in food production and covered the following areas:

Mercè Sánchez, Programme Manager at BRCGS, shared insights on audit requirements, industry trends, and common non-conformities.
Radek Tameczka, Klipspringer’s in-house A3 expert, explained ATP degradation, the impact on allergen detection, and the process of validating hygiene benchmarks.
Yusei Tsuda, representing Kikkoman – the world’s leading soy sauce manufacturer – shared the development history of the A3 System.
Ed Campion, Hygiene Transformation Project Manager at Weetabix, discussed his hands-on experience implementing the A3 System.
Alex Carlyon, Klipspringer Director, led a live Q&A session, with additional questions answered after the webinar.

View the Webinar Slides

Discover the A3 System

Mercè Sánchez – BRCGS Audit Compliance

Housekeeping and Hygiene Requirements

Mercè Sánchez – the Programme Manager for Global Food Standards at BRCGS – opened the webinar with an overview of the housekeeping and hygiene requirements under BRCGS Food Safety Issue 9.

She offered a closer look at Clause 4.11 which outlines general housekeeping expectations for all food sites, covering areas such as the cleanliness of premises and equipment, training and records, cleaning performance limits, and cleaning inspections.

It is worth noting that in Clause 4.11.3, BRCGS directly references the validation of cleaning performance limits – guidance that closely relates to ATP testing and the A3 System.

Mercè also highlighted the fact that Section 8.5 of the standard introduces additional requirements for high-risk or high-care zones. These requirements supersede section 4.11 where applicable, and sites with high-care and high-risk areas must comply with both sections.

Top Areas of Non-Conformity

Mercè went on to share some of the top non-conformities relating to housekeeping and hygiene:

Clause 4.11.1 is the top non-conformity, it relates to the cleanliness of premises and equipment
Clause 4.11.2 is the tenth most common non-conformity, it relates to documented cleaning procedures
Clause 4.11.6 is the twenty-sixth most common non-conformity, it relates to cleaning equipment
Clause 4.11.8.1 is the forty-seventh most common non-conformity, it relates to risk-based environmental monitoring

Radek Tameczka – Hygiene Verification

Beyond ATP: The Limits of Rapid Hygiene Verification

In this section of the webinar, Radek explored the key steps in hygiene verification, along with the strengths and limitations of ATP testing in food safety applications.

He explained that effective hygiene verification doesn’t start with ATP testing. The first step is a visual inspection – ensuring no visible residues or debris remain after cleaning. Only once a surface passes this initial check should rapid verification methods be used.

These methods commonly include ATP or protein testing, which confirm whether the cleaning process has been successful.

ATP testing detects adenosine triphosphate, a molecule found in all living cells and food residues. Because results are available almost instantly, ATP testing is widely used to provide quantitative, real-time feedback on cleanliness before production restarts.
Protein swabs are often used alongside ATP tests. These swabs detect residual proteins, which makes them particularly useful for allergen control.
There are also other complementary testing methods, such as pH or conductivity tests, which can be used to confirm the removal of cleaning agents or detergent residues.

Why ATP Tests Don’t Always Tell the Full Story

ATP is a high-energy, unstable molecule that naturally breaks down into ADP and AMP. Several processes can accelerate ATP degradation. Heating, for example, destroys ATP by denaturing enzymes and breaking phosphate bonds.

Chemical action, like the use of cleaning agents or disinfectants, can oxidize or hydrolyse ATP molecules, breaking them apart. Physical or environmental stress, including low pH, oxidation, light, and dehydration, can also speed up ATP breakdown and reduce the effectiveness of ATP tests.

Because of this, ATP testing can create a false sense of security. Even when ATP levels are low, food residues may still be present, posing risks such as: allergen cross-contact, microbial regrowth, biofilm formation, and physical contamination.

White Paper: Hygiene Verification - Analysing an alternative approach to ATP

Examine an emerging testing method that offers an alternative to traditional ATP assays
Comparative research from a leading manufacturer
Case Studies from Weetabix and McCain Foods

Yusei Tsuda – Developing the A3 System

From ATP to A3: The Evolution of Kikkoman’s Hygiene Verification System

In the next part of the webinar, Yusei Tsuda from Kikkoman Biochemifa shared the fascinating journey behind the development of the A3 System – a story that began with one simple question: “Is testing for ATP alone enough?”

The Detection of ATP only

Building on nearly 400 years of expertise in fermentation and enzyme technology, Kikkoman launched the first-generation LuciPac Swab in 1998. It detected ATP only.

While initially successful, customer feedback revealed a key issue – ATP readings were sometimes low even on visibly dirty surfaces. This led Kikkoman to make a ground-breaking discovery: although ATP is an ideal indicator of contamination because it is present in all foods and food ingredients, it is not very stable. Under certain conditions, ATP breaks down into ADP and then AMP.

The Detection of ATP and AMP

In 2009, Kikkoman released the second-generation LuciPac W Swab, capable of detecting ATP and AMP. Again, it was highly successful, but some customers were still reporting confusing results.

Kikkoman’s research team investigated and found that this was because the food ingredients used by this customer contained a little ATP or AMP, but a large amount of ADP.

A3 System: The Detection of ATP + AMP + ADP

Finally, Kikkoman launched the LuciPac A3 Smart System in 2017. This technology measures ATP, ADP, and AMP simultaneously, offering a complete picture of cleanliness across all food matrices, whether that’s raw, processed, or plant-based.

Yusei concluded by celebrating the fact that the A3 System is now used in more than 75 countries, primarily across the global food production sector.

Radek Tameczka – Video Comparison, Allergens, and Benchmarks

Video Comparison: ATP Tests and the A3 System

In this part of the webinar, Radek presented a video comparison demonstrating how the A3 System performs in real-world applications when compared to traditional ATP tests.

In the footage, standard ATP tests incorrectly returned “pass” results when testing surfaces contaminated with products that naturally contain low ATP levels, such as egg and raw steak, as well as heat-treated or refined foods like bread and UHT milk.

This occurred because processing methods such as heating, drying, or chemical treatment accelerate the breakdown of ATP, leaving little to none available for detection. In contrast, the A3 System, which simultaneously detects ATP, ADP, and AMP, did not encounter this issue

The A3 System and Allergens

Many allergenic foods (e.g. peanuts, soybeans, shrimp, and beer) contain primarily ADP and AMP rather than ATP. As a result, standard ATP tests can miss allergenic residues entirely.

In contrast, the A3 System measures ATP, ADP, and AMP. While it cannot determine whether a detected residue is specifically an allergen or identify which allergen is present, the system provides greater confidence when moving on to additional testing, particularly for allergen control.

Setting and Validating Benchmarks

When implementing the A3 System, Klipspringer supports sites in establishing and validating referential benchmarks – defining what “clean” looks like for each testing point and ensuring it can be consistently maintained.

This process involves recording A3 readings after different cleaning methods, conducting clean and re-clean trials, incorporating allergen and microbiological data, and adjusting benchmarks for various surfaces and product types as needed. Once complete, customers receive a document detailing their evidence-based cleanliness criteria.

Ed Campion – Weetabix Case Study

Practical Insights on Adopting the A3 System

It was fantastic to have Ed Campion, Hygiene Transformation Project Manager at Weetabix, join the webinar. With a decade of experience across both high-risk and low-risk food manufacturing environments, Ed specialises in validating the removal of allergens, pathogens, and indicator organisms.

During this part of the webinar, Ed shared his experience using traditional ATP tests before transitioning to the A3 System. Ed noted that, with ATP-only tests, areas that appeared visibly unclean would sometimes return readings close to zero, resulting in repeated swabbing and inconsistent results.

The Weetabix Validation Study

About three years ago Ed and his team conducted a validation study of the A3 System at Weetabix, comparing it with traditional ATP-only tests across eight factories. The study examined areas that had been thoroughly cleaned and intentionally uncleaned.

The results showed that ATP tests frequently produced unreliable readings, including false negatives. However, the A3 System delivered consistent results that closely matched visual inspections and microbiological swabbing. When debris or microbial contamination was present, the A3 readings were high; when surfaces were clean and within microbial specifications, the readings were near zero.

This reliability built trust in the A3 System, reducing the need for repeat swabbing, saving time and resources. It also inspired confidence in both the data and the effectiveness of hygiene practices.

Alex Carlyon – Live Q&A Session

We’ve compiled a comprehensive list of all the questions and answers shared during the webinar, including responses to those questions we didn’t have time to cover.

View the complete list of Q&As

So there you have it – a closer look at how cleaning verification is evolving, why traditional ATP Tests are often unreliable, and how the A3 System is helping sites to see the full picture.