PMFLIST Archives

October 1998

PMFLIST@LISTS.MICROBIOLOGYNETWORK.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
EvalProc <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
The Pharmaceutical Microbiology Mail List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 16 Oct 1998 11:58:33 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (125 lines)
Dear Douglas

I´m very interested in your print "Using Swabs for Cleaning Validation: A
Review,"

Best regards,

Eng. Kenia Vazquez Montero
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Address: Ave. 31 e/ 158 y 190, Reparto Cubanacán, C.P. 6162, A.P. 10600
               Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba.

----------
> From: Douglas W. Cooper <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PMFLIST] Swabs vs. Contact Plates
> Date: Thursday, October 01, 1998 9:28 AM
>
> Transfer from the surface to the swab and from the swab to the liquid
> medium used in extraction  will depend on many factors. The 10% figure
> cited below seems unusually low. [Vortexing to remove organisms from
> polyester wipers, for example, has shown recoveries from 50 - 90+%.]
Those
> who would be interested are invited to send me electronic mail with a
> request and their postal addresses, and I will send them:
>
> D.W. Cooper, "Using Swabs for Cleaning Validation: A Review," pp. 74-89,
> Cleaning Validation, Institute of Validation Technology, Royal Palm
Beach,
> FL, 1998.
>
> Douglas W. Cooper, Ph.D.
> Director, Contamination Control
> The Texwipe Co. LLC
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
> "Sturm Pam HMR/US" <[log in to unmask]> on 09/30/98 09:26:03 AM
>
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> cc:    (bcc: Douglas W. Cooper/Texwipe)
> Subject:  Re: [PMFLIST] Swabs vs. Contact Plates
>
>
>
>
> Nancy,
> Sorry to hear that your supplier can't meet your needs.
> I think if you're going to substitute swabs for contact plates you're
going
> to have to do some in-house studies comparing recovery.  My inquiries in
> this direction indicate that swabbing recovery is pretty poor compared to
> RODAC's.  I know that various workers claim recovery of as much as
50%-80%,
> but I think they must be living in an ideal world.  In my world, even if
> you
> vortex the dickens out of the swab, it still doesn't want to let go of
any
> bugs it's picked up, and you're lucky if you get 10%.  I have in the past
> looked for comparison recovery percentages, but the information available
> is
> somewhat unsatisfactory.
> I know this doesn't sound very cheerful, but that's why we only use swabs
> for areas that are virtually inaccessible with other sampling methods.
> Pam Sturm
> Associate microbiologist
> Mail: C1-M0619
> Phone: (816) 966-5668
> e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nancy Fulginiti [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 1998 1:52 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [PMFLIST] Swabs vs. Contact Plates
>
>
> Hi Everyone,
> Recently, I had to deviate from a method that specified contact plates to
> be used for floor monitoring because the manufacturer was out of stock on
> our standing order of plates.  In the deviation, I wrote that I planned
to
> use swabs as a back up test.  OF course, QA would like some documentation
> as to the equivalency of the two methods.  Has anyone ever performed a
> study or can anyone direct me to a reference that compares these two
> methods?  If I recall, the APHA might have a chapter on this.  Any help
is
> appreciated.
> Nancy A. Fulginiti
>
>
> ------------------
> The PMFList (http://microbiol.org/pmf.htm) is operated from
> The Microbiology Network (http://microbiol.org) and supported by
> our sponsors (http://microbiol.org/sponsor.htm) as a service to
> the scientific community.
>
>
> ------------------
> The PMFList (http://microbiol.org/pmf.htm) is operated from
> The Microbiology Network (http://microbiol.org) and supported by
> our sponsors (http://microbiol.org/sponsor.htm) as a service to
> the scientific community.
>
>
> ------------------
> The PMFList (http://microbiol.org/pmf.htm) is operated from
> The Microbiology Network (http://microbiol.org) and supported by
> our sponsors (http://microbiol.org/sponsor.htm) as a service to
> the scientific community.
>


------------------
The PMFList (http://microbiol.org/pmf.htm) is operated from
The Microbiology Network (http://microbiol.org) and supported by
our sponsors (http://microbiol.org/sponsor.htm) as a service to
the scientific community.



ATOM RSS1 RSS2