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:
"Douglas W. Cooper" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
The Pharmaceutical Microbiology Mail List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 1 Oct 1998 09:28:44 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (92 lines)
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.



ATOM RSS1 RSS2