A modified ATP benchmark for evaluating the cleaning of some hospital environmental surfaces

Evaluation of Three Surface Friction Techniques for the Removal of Organic Matter

“…Therefore, this process is also expected to be capable of reducing organic substances to low levels. 21 Consequently, in this study we can state that the cleaning of surfaces with the three friction techniques, using 70% alcohol, reduced 61.5% to 76.9% of organic matter to acceptable levels (<500 RLU), depending on the used technique, though an RLU cut-off that can be associated with an increase or reduction in healthcare-associated infections has not yet been validated.…”

“…Therefore, the RLU detected before and after cleaning/disinfection, regardless of the friction technique, may represent the microbial density or residual secretions that contain cellular ATP of patients and professionals. 21 Normally, it is probable that about 33% of the ATP from surfaces touched by hands have microbial origin. 22 On the other hand, studies show that the detection limit (i.e., the lowest microorganism level that would generate 1 RLU, using Clean-Trace ATP test kit; 3M ™ Inc.) for viable bacteria was ~10 2 CFU/ml and ~10 3 CFU/ml of gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria, respectively.…”

“…[11][12]21 In this sense, as we have previously described, ATP analysis measures microbiological and non-microbiological ATP sources, which can be removed through an effective cleaning/disinfection protocol that must take the friction technique into account, amongst others variables. The test can be used to supply instant data feedback on the cleaning of surfaces, working as an instrument to demonstrate the flaws in the cleaning/disinfection routines or techniques, assess protocols and train the professionals who perform these activities.…”

“…The test can be used to supply instant data feedback on the cleaning of surfaces, working as an instrument to demonstrate the flaws in the cleaning/disinfection routines or techniques, assess protocols and train the professionals who perform these activities. 11,21 An estimated 20% to 40% of hospital infections' etiologies are associated with cross infection by the hands of healthcare professionals who are contaminated through direct contact with patients, or indirectly touching contaminated surfaces. 24 It is not surprising that, due to the frequent interaction with hospital surfaces and patients, healthcare professionals and visitors may transfer secretions, oils, skin cells and microorganisms to these surfaces.…”

“…However, surfaces that fit the visual cleaning criterion often remain contaminated by microorganisms or other organic materials. 8,11,13,21 It is odd that these same studies do not focus on, describe or compare friction techniques with detergents and/or disinfectants on the surfaces evaluated.…”