Adenosine Triphosphate Bioluminescence Assay versus Microbiological Swab Culture in the Evaluation of Surface Sanitation in a Pediatric Hospital in Romania.

IF 2.7 4区医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

Risk Management and Healthcare Policy Pub Date : 2025-05-19 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/RMHP.S509274

Alexandra Tudorica Sirmon, Luminița Mirela Bădițoiu, Mariana Anghel, Sorina Maria Denisa Laitin, Delia Muntean, Carmen Ana Kemper

{"title":"Adenosine Triphosphate Bioluminescence Assay versus Microbiological Swab Culture in the Evaluation of Surface Sanitation in a Pediatric Hospital in Romania.","authors":"Alexandra Tudorica Sirmon, Luminița Mirela Bădițoiu, Mariana Anghel, Sorina Maria Denisa Laitin, Delia Muntean, Carmen Ana Kemper","doi":"10.2147/RMHP.S509274","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: This study aimed to compare two rapid testing methods - Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP) quantification and the total Aerobic Colony Count (ACC) by bioluminescence assay with the standard method - microbiological swab culture. The goal was to determine the advantages and limitations of these rapid alternative tests in assessing the sanitary condition of hospital surfaces.Methods: A total of 88 samples were collected from various surfaces (stainless steel, metal, plastic, Tarkett, ceramic, glass, textile) in medical and surgical wards of a pediatric hospital. For each tested area, one sample underwent standard microbiological culture (25 cm²), and two adjacent samples (each 100 cm²) were analyzed using the ENSURE® TOUCH luminometer (Hygiena): one for ATP quantification (Ultrasnap) and one for ACC determination (Microsnap Total). Surfaces had been disinfected with commonly used agents-hydrogen peroxide, chlorinated products, or peracetic acid.Results: The Ultrasnap system identified 25 non-conforming samples; Microsnap Total found 13 non-conforming samples, while microbiological culture revealed one non-conforming sample and an additional 11 with low but detectable bacterial presence. The Ultrasnap method recorded a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 72.41% and an accuracy of 72.73%. In comparison, the Microsnap Total system showed higher specificity and accuracy (85.05% and 84.09%, respectively), but failed to identify the positive (non-conforming) test, resulting in a 0% positive predictive value.Conclusion: The study highlighted several advantages of rapid ATP tests, particularly their ease of use, their ability to provide results in just 10 seconds for Ultrasnap and approximately 7 hours for Microsnap Total, and their capacity to accurately identify well-sanitized surfaces. Additionally, Ultrasnap proved to be a sensitive indicator of residual organic matter, enhancing the capacity to distinguish between different sanitation levels and allowing cleaning and disinfection practices to be adjusted in real time, thereby reducing the risk of cross-transmission.","PeriodicalId":56009,"journal":{"name":"Risk Management and Healthcare Policy","volume":"18 ","pages":"1669-1681"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12101449/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Risk Management and Healthcare Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S509274","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to compare two rapid testing methods - Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP) quantification and the total Aerobic Colony Count (ACC) by bioluminescence assay with the standard method - microbiological swab culture. The goal was to determine the advantages and limitations of these rapid alternative tests in assessing the sanitary condition of hospital surfaces.

Methods: A total of 88 samples were collected from various surfaces (stainless steel, metal, plastic, Tarkett, ceramic, glass, textile) in medical and surgical wards of a pediatric hospital. For each tested area, one sample underwent standard microbiological culture (25 cm²), and two adjacent samples (each 100 cm²) were analyzed using the ENSURE^® TOUCH luminometer (Hygiena): one for ATP quantification (Ultrasnap) and one for ACC determination (Microsnap Total). Surfaces had been disinfected with commonly used agents-hydrogen peroxide, chlorinated products, or peracetic acid.

Results: The Ultrasnap system identified 25 non-conforming samples; Microsnap Total found 13 non-conforming samples, while microbiological culture revealed one non-conforming sample and an additional 11 with low but detectable bacterial presence. The Ultrasnap method recorded a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 72.41% and an accuracy of 72.73%. In comparison, the Microsnap Total system showed higher specificity and accuracy (85.05% and 84.09%, respectively), but failed to identify the positive (non-conforming) test, resulting in a 0% positive predictive value.

Conclusion: The study highlighted several advantages of rapid ATP tests, particularly their ease of use, their ability to provide results in just 10 seconds for Ultrasnap and approximately 7 hours for Microsnap Total, and their capacity to accurately identify well-sanitized surfaces. Additionally, Ultrasnap proved to be a sensitive indicator of residual organic matter, enhancing the capacity to distinguish between different sanitation levels and allowing cleaning and disinfection practices to be adjusted in real time, thereby reducing the risk of cross-transmission.

查看原文本刊更多论文

三磷酸腺苷生物发光试验与微生物拭子培养在评估罗马尼亚儿科医院的表面卫生。

目的：比较三磷酸腺苷（ATP）定量和总需氧菌落计数（ACC）两种快速检测方法，标准方法为微生物拭子培养。目的是确定这些快速替代测试在评估医院表面卫生状况方面的优点和局限性。方法：从某儿科医院内科和外科病房的各种表面（不锈钢、金属、塑料、得嘉、陶瓷、玻璃、纺织品）中采集样本88份。对于每个测试区域，一个样品进行标准微生物培养（25 cm²），两个相邻样品（每个100 cm²）使用ENSURE®TOUCH光度计（Hygiena）进行分析：一个用于ATP定量（Ultrasnap），一个用于ACC测定（Microsnap Total）。表面用常用的消毒剂——过氧化氢、氯化产物或过氧乙酸消毒。结果：Ultrasnap系统鉴别出25份不合格样品；Microsnap Total发现了13个不合格样品，而微生物培养显示了一个不合格样品和另外11个低但可检测到的细菌存在。Ultrasnap方法的灵敏度为100%，特异性为72.41%，准确度为72.73%。相比之下，Microsnap Total系统具有更高的特异性和准确性（分别为85.05%和84.09%），但未能识别阳性（不符合）测试，导致阳性预测值为0%。结论：该研究强调了快速ATP检测的几个优势，特别是其易用性，Ultrasnap仅需10秒即可提供结果，Microsnap Total仅需7小时，并且能够准确识别消毒良好的表面。此外，Ultrasnap被证明是残留有机物的敏感指标，增强了区分不同卫生水平的能力，并允许实时调整清洁和消毒方法，从而降低了交叉传播的风险。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Risk Management and Healthcare Policy Medicine-Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

CiteScore

6.20

自引率

2.90%

发文量

242

审稿时长

16 weeks

期刊介绍： Risk Management and Healthcare Policy is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal focusing on all aspects of public health, policy and preventative measures to promote good health and improve morbidity and mortality in the population. Specific topics covered in the journal include: Public and community health Policy and law Preventative and predictive healthcare Risk and hazard management Epidemiology, detection and screening Lifestyle and diet modification Vaccination and disease transmission/modification programs Health and safety and occupational health Healthcare services provision Health literacy and education Advertising and promotion of health issues Health economic evaluations and resource management Risk Management and Healthcare Policy focuses on human interventional and observational research. The journal welcomes submitted papers covering original research, clinical and epidemiological studies, reviews and evaluations, guidelines, expert opinion and commentary, and extended reports. Case reports will only be considered if they make a valuable and original contribution to the literature. The journal does not accept study protocols, animal-based or cell line-based studies.