Innovations in Hygiene Testing - Food Safety Innovation Conference 2024

Next, Gabriel spoke about the important role that Cleaning Validation plays at food production sites. He began with a brief definition:

Cleaning Validation should demonstrate that routine cleaning procedures are suitable and lead to the the following outcomes:

• Reduce microbial load (microorganisms and their toxins)
• Remove cleaning agent residues
• Remove product residues from the previous batch (colour, odour, microbial load)
• Remove allergens from the previous batch

Gabriel also outlined the necessary prerequisites for a successful Cleaning Validation:

• All equipment (e.g. washing machines, processing equipment) needs to be qualified
• All testing instruments need to be calibrated
• Routine conditions must be clear
• Routine batch size must be clear
• The formulation must be considered “approved for routine use”
• The cleaning agents and process parameters must be defined
• The raw materials must be specified and approved

ATP is easily converted into ADP and/or AMP through biological metabolism or decomposition at a high temperature or pH.

The decomposition of ATP derivatives is particularly common in the following areas:

After his explanation of ATP, ADP, and AMP, Dr Stephan provided a demonstration of the A3 system at work.

During this demonstration he highlighted the importance of firmly swabbing a surface for more accurate results, ideally using the guideline of a 10cm x 10cm area.

He also discussed the different swab options available:

The A3 system is compatible with surface swabs, water swabs, and pre-moistened swabs. However, Dr Stephan expressed a preference for surface swabs, even for use on a dry area in need of lubrication.

Dr Stephan explained that because tap water produces such a low reading anyway, it should be suitable for moistening the standard surface swab before use on a dry area. Although pre-moistened swabs would also work in this instance, Dr Stephan favoured the avoidance of the chemicals that all pre-moistened swabs contain.

Dr Stephan then conducted a three-part demonstration.

First, he swabbed a sample of tap water.

Second, he swabbed a sample of tap water that had been contaminated with a finger.

Finally, he swabbed the inside of a volunteer’s mouth.

The three tests helped to illustrate how the A3 system could be used to detect levels of ATP, ADP and AMP across a variety of test environments. The demonstration also highlighted the accuracy of A3 technology, as well as the speed at which the system could generate a result.

Dr Stephan then conducted a second demonstration – a direct comparison of an A3 test and a conventional ATP test at work.

During this demonstration, Dr Stephan tested a surface that had been contaminated with cooked sausage. Here, cooked sausage was the perfect choice as it is an example of a food type that that has low levels of ATP, but high levels of its derivatives ADP and AMP.

As expected, the conventional ATP test generated a reading that would likely be considered a pass at most food production sites. However, the A3 test generated a fail result – detecting the presence of ADP and AMP. It is also worth noting that the surface would have failed a Visual Check.

Below are some further examples of the A3 test being used alongside a conventional ATP test. They were shared by Dr Stephen and Gabriel Linder during the second half of the Workshop: