The comparative performance of three brands of portable ATP-bioluminometer intended for use in hospital infection control

Article

<< Previous

Next >>

Contents Vol 17(3)

doi:10.1071/HI12021

Official Journal of the Australasian College for Infection Prevention and Control

	Search




	Advanced Search



	Journal Home

	About the Journal

	Editorial Committee

	Contacts



	Content

	Online Early

	Current Issue

	Just Accepted

	All Issues

	Special Issues

	Sample Issue



	For Authors

	General Information

	Guidelines for Authors

	Submit Article



	For Referees

	Referee Guidelines

	Review Article

	Annual Referee Index



	For Subscribers

	Subscription Prices

	Customer Service

	Print Publication Dates



	For Advertisers

e-Alerts

Subscribe to our Email Alert or

feeds for the latest journal papers.

Connect with us

Submit Article

Use the online submission system to send us your paper.

The comparative performance of three brands of portable ATP-bioluminometer intended for use in hospital infection control

G. S. Whiteley ^A ^B ^C, C. Derry ^A and T. Glasbey ^B

^A School of Science and Health, University of Western Sydney, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia.
^B Whiteley Corporation, 12 Mount Street, North Sydney, NSW 2060, Australia.
^C Corresponding author. Email: gsw@whiteley.com.au

Healthcare Infection 17(3) 91-97 http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/HI12021
Submitted: 12 July 2012 Accepted: 19 July 2012 Published: 28 August 2012





	PDF (392 KB) $25



	Export Citation

Print

Abstract

Background: Portable adenosine triphosphate (ATP)-bioluminometers have been used in the food industry to monitor the effectiveness of surface cleaning but their intended use in hospital infection control suggests a need for instrument validation to confirm effective technology transfer.

Methods: The performance of three readily available brands of portable bioluminometer was compared in terms of their ability to generate relative light units (RLU) from a range of standard ATP solutions. Quality control of standards was carried out using high pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC).

Results: There was no significant difference (P = 0.05) in the ability of different meters to effectively measure hygiene change on a log scale in a central measurement range of 0.001 to 1.0 mg L^–1 ATP. Outside this range meter performance deteriorated, with the possibility of individual and comparative measurement error. No out-of-range warning system existed for any of the meters. While different brands generated widely different log₁₀RLU values for fixed quantities of ATP in this range, curve similarities suggested standardisation possibilities to enable comparison of results. Testing at a higher level of resolution in the 0.0001 to 0.002 mg L^–1 ATP range proximate to a proposed 100 RLU cleaning benchmark also revealed poor repeatability as a potential for measurement error.

Conclusions: Portable ATP-bioluminometers, when used to indicate surface cleaning effectiveness, demonstrate reliable performance when measuring over a very wide range of ATP concentrations. Monitoring hygiene in terms of an absolute threshold value such as a cleaning benchmark may, however, be invalid as a concept when using existing portable ATP-bioluminometer technology.

References

[1] National Health and Medical Research Council [NHMRC]. Australian Guidelines for the Prevention and Control of Infection in Healthcare. Department of Health and Ageing, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2010.

[2] Lipscomb IP, Sihota AK, Keevil CW. Comparison between visual analysis and microscope assessment of surgical instrument cleanliness from sterile service departments. J Hosp Infect 2008; 68: 52–8.
| CrossRef | CAS |

[3] Malik RE, Cooper RA, Griffith CJ. Use of audit tools to evaluate the efficacy of cleaning systems in hospitals. Am J Infect Control 2003; 31: 181–7.
| CrossRef |

[4] Boyce JM, Havill NL, Mangione E, Dumigan DG, Moore BA. Comparison of fluorescent marker systems with 2 quantitative methods of assessing terminal cleaning practices. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011; 32: 1187–93.
| CrossRef |

[5] Carling PC, Parry MM, Rupp ME, Po JL, Dick B, Von Beheren S. Improving cleaning of the environment surrounding patients in 36 acute care hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008; 29: 1035–41.
| CrossRef |

[6] Murphy CL, Macbeth DA, Derrington P, Gerrard J, Faloon J, Kenway K, et al An assessment of high touch objects cleaning thoroughness using a fluorescent marker in two Australian hospitals. Healthc Infect 2011; 16: 156–63.
| CrossRef |

[7] Griffith CJ, Cooper RA, Gilmore J, Davies C, Lewis M. An evaluation of hospital cleaning regimes and standards. J Hosp Infect 2000; 45: 19–28.
| CrossRef | CAS |

[8] Boyce JM, Havill NL, Dumigan DG, Golebiewski M, Balogun O, Rizvani R. Monitoring the effectiveness of hospital cleaning practices by use of an adenosine triphosphate bioluminescence assay. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2009; 30: 678–84.
| CrossRef |

[9] Griffith CJ, Obee P, Cooper RA, Burton NF, Lewis M. The effectiveness of existing and modified cleaning regimens in a Welsh Hospital. J Hosp Infect 2007; 66: 352–9.
| CrossRef | CAS |

[10] Malik DJ, Sharma G. Estimating bacterial surface contamination by means of ATP determinations: 20 pence short of a pound. J Hosp Infect 2012; 80: 354–5.
| CrossRef | CAS |

[11] Shama G, Malik DJ. The uses and abuses of rapid bioluminescence-based ATP assays. Int J Hyg Environ Health 2012; : .
| CrossRef |

[12] Cooper RA, Griffith CJ, Malik RE, Obee P, Looker N. Monitoring the effectiveness of cleaning in four British hospitals. Am J Infect Control 2007; 35: 338–41.
| CrossRef |

[13] Griffith CJ. Choosing a luminometer. International Food Hyg 2008; 19: 23–5.

[14] García LA, Díaz M. Cleaning in Place, in Comprehensive Biotechnology, 2011. 2nd edn., vol. 2 (Eds Moo-Young M, Butler M, Webb C, et al.), New York. Pergamon.

[15] Hawronskyj J-M, Holah J. ATP: a universal hygiene monitor. Trends Food Sci Technol 1997; 8: 79–84.
| CrossRef | CAS |

[16] Jasson V, Jacxsens L, Luning P, Rajkovic A, Uyttendaele M. Alternative microbial methods: an overview and selection criteria. Food Microbiol 2010; 27: 710–30.
| CrossRef |

[17] Sherlock O, O’Connell N, Creamer E, Humphreys H. Is it really clean? An evaluation of the efficacy of four methods for determining hospital cleanliness. J Hosp Infect 2009; 72: 140–6.
| CrossRef | CAS |

[18] Dancer SJ. How do we assess hospital cleaning? A proposal for microbiological standards for surface hygiene in hospitals. J Hosp Infect 2004; 56: 10–5.
| CrossRef | CAS |

[19] Aiken ZA, Wilson M, Pratten J. Evaluation of ATP bioluminescence assays for potential use in a hospital setting. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011; 32: 507–9.
| CrossRef |

[20] Roda A, ed. Chemiluminescence and Bioluminescence: Past, Present and Future. 1st edn. London: RSC Publishing; 2010.

[21] Andersen BM, Rasch M, Kvist J, Tollefsen T, Lukkassen R, Sandvik L, et al Floor cleaning: effect on bacteria and organic materials in hospital rooms. J Hosp Infect 2009; 71: 57–65.
| CrossRef | CAS |

[22] Hong Y, Brown DG. Variation in bacterial ATP level and proton motive force due to adhesion to a solid surface. App Environ Microbiol 2009; 75: 2346–2353.
| CrossRef | CAS |

[23] Lewis T, Griffith CJ, Gallo M, Weinbren M. A modified ATP benchmark for evaluating the cleaning of some hospital environmental surfaces. J Hosp Infect 2008; 69: 156–63.
| CrossRef | CAS |

[24] Mulvey D, Redding P, Robertson C, Woodall C, Kingsmore P, Bedwell D, et al Finding a benchmark for monitoring hospital cleanliness. J Hosp Infect 2011; 77: 25–30.
| CrossRef | CAS |

[25] Spiegel MR. Statistics. 2nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2011.

[26] Hedin G, Rynbäck J, Loré B. New technique to take samples from environmental surfaces using flocked nylon swabs. J Hosp Infect 2010; 75: 314–7.
| CrossRef | CAS |

[27] Kim C, Hsieh Y-L. Wetting and absorbency of nonionic surfactant solutions on cotton fabrics. Colloids Surf A Physicochem Eng Asp 2001; 187–188: 385–97.
| CrossRef |

[28] Dancer SJ. Importance of the environment in meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus acquisition: the case for hospital cleaning. Lancet Infect Dis 2008; 8: 101–13.
| CrossRef |

[29] Dancer SJ, White LF, Lamb J, Girvan EK, Robertson C. Measuring the effect of enhanced cleaning in a UK hospital: a prospective cross-over study. BMC Med 2009; 7: 28.
| CrossRef |

[30] Whiteley GS, Derry C. The importance of practical zero in cleaning performance indicators. In: Abstracts of the 14th Congress of the International Federation of Infection Control; 2011 Oct 12–15; Venice; Craigavon, Northern Ireland: IFIC; 2011.

[31] Anderson RE, Young V, Stewart M, Robertson C, Dancer SJ. Cleanliness audit of clinical surfaces and equipment: who cleans what? J Hosp Infect 2011; 78: 178–81.
| CrossRef | CAS |

[32] Heathcote R, Stadelmann B. Measuring of ATP bioluminescence as a means of assessing washer disinfector performance and potentially as a means of validating the decontamination process. Healthc Infect 2009; 14: 147–51.
| CrossRef |

[33] Gillespie EE, Scott C, Wilson J, Stuart R. Pilot study to measure cleaning effectiveness in health care. Am J Infect Control 2012; 40: 477–8.
| CrossRef |

[34] Wilson F, Wells A. Evaluating environmental cleanliness in hospital and other healthcare settings. Healthc Infect 2012; 17: 70.
| CrossRef |

Subscriber Login

	Username: Password:

Legal & Privacy | Contact Us | Help