Laboratory of Environmental Science,FCG Research Institute,Inc.
3-32-42-6F, Higashi-Shinagawa, Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo
140-0002, Japan
Tel:03-5495-1506, Fax:03-5495-1523
TEST REPORT NO.24003
Apr.10,2012
Kikkoman Biochemifa Company
2-1-1, Nishi-Shinbashi, Minato-ku, Tokyo
105-0003, Japan
Performance evaluation test for the ATP + AMP wiping testing equipment
Kazuhiro Hashimoto, Ph.D.
EXAMINER
Yuji Kawakami, Ph.D.
DIRECTOR
FCG Research Institute,Inc.
1
Purpose
The purpose of the test is to perform measurement using various types of solutions for 5 models of
the hygiene monitoring systems and compare the performances of the models. The following 5 items
were tested this time.
(1) Measurement test of ATP solution
(2) Luminescence persistence test
(3) Measurement test of AMP solution
(4) Measurement of food suspensions
(5) Measurement of microbial suspensions
Models to be tested
The five models of the testing equipment subjected to this test are shown in Table 1 and Fig. 1.
Table.1
Hygiene monitoring systems were used in this test.
Hygiene monitoring device
Swab
Lot number of swab
*1
Meas
*2
Lumitester PD-20 (Kikkoman)
LuciPac Pen
20120327P , 20120111P
ATP+AMP
UNG3 (3M)
CleanTrace
650
ATP
SystemSure Plus (Hygiena)
UltraSnap
63411
ATP
Ensure (Hygiena)
SuperSnap
59111 , 86211
AccuPoint (Neogen)
AccuPoint ATP
172095
*3
*4
ATP
ATP
*1
Used in Test (1)
*2 Was used in the test other than Test (1)
*3 Used in「Test (4)Ground pork」and 「Test (4)Shrimp」
*4 Was used in the test other than 「Test (4)Ground pork」and「Test (4)Shrimp」
Lumitester PD-20
175×65×32mm
235g (body only)
Fig.1
UNG3
205×85×60mm
400g
SystemSure Pro
191×72×33mm
260g
Ensure
191×72×33mm
260g
AccuPoint
137×85×48 mm
360g (body only)
Size and weight of each hygiene monitoring devices.
FCG Research Institute,Inc.
2
Method
In this test, 10 μL of test solution was dropped on a swab for each model, and the luminescence
intensity was measured according to the procedure of using the equipment described in each
instruction manual. The temperature in the laboratory was set to 22°C, and each reagent had been
placed at room temperature for 1 hour before the test started.
(1) Measurement test of ATP solution
ATP (Adenosine-5'-triphosphate, Oriental Yeast Co., Ltd.) was dissolved into ultrapure water, and
serial dilution was performed to prepare 10 -11 mol/L, 10 -10 mol/L, 10 -9 mol/L, 10 -8 mol/L, 10 -7 mol/L,
10
-6
mol/L, 10
-5
mol/L, and 10
-4
mol/L solutions as the test solutions. 10 μL of test solution was
dropped on a swab for each model, and each luminescence intensity was measured. Each test
solution was measured 10 times.
A standard curve is created from the obtained measured values, and the repeatability of the
measured values was expressed as a coefficient of variation (CV %=100 x SD / Mean). Also, the limit
of detection (RLU) of each model was calculated from the blank value (LOD=Mean+3 x SD). In
addition, the calculated value was divided by the slope of the standard curve , and the limit of
detection (mol) was calculated by (LOD=(Mean+3 x SD) / Slope of curve).
(2) Luminescence persistence test
The luminescence intensity was measured every time elapsed using the 10
-7
mol/L ATP solution to
be used for the test (1) to test the luminescence persistence. The swab on which 10 μL of test solution
was dropped was set for each of 4 models, Lumitester PD-20, UNG3, SystemSure Pro, and Ensure,
and the measurement button was pressed at the intervals of 20 seconds by measuring the time with
a stop watch after the test started. The measurement was repeated by pressing the measurement
button at 0 seconds, 20 seconds, 40 seconds, 60 seconds, 80 seconds, 100 seconds, and 120 seconds.
The measurement was conducted 6 times for each model.
As for AccuPoint, the swab on which 10 μL of test solution was dropped was set, and the
luminescence intensity was repetitively measured by measuring time with a stop watch after the
test started and by opening/closing the lid for the swab insertion port every 40 seconds. The
measurement was performed at 0 seconds, 40 seconds, 80 seconds, and 120 seconds 6 times each.
The average value for each time was calculated, and the percentage of change from the start of the
measurement (0 seconds) was found.
(3) Measurement test of AMP solution
AMP-Na (Adenosine-5'-monophosphate (disodium salt), Oriental Yeast Co., Ltd.) was dissolved into
ultrapure water, and serial dilution was performed to prepare 10 -7 mol/L solution as the test solution.
10 μL of test solution was dropped on a swab for each model, and the luminescence intensity of the
swab was measured. Measurement was done 6 times for each model.
FCG Research Institute,Inc.
3
(4) Measurement of food suspensions
The following suspensions of 5 foods were measured.
Ground pork (raw)
Shrimp (boiled)
Beer
Orange juice (100% pure fruit juice)
Milk (pasteurized)
10 g of ground pork or 10 g of shrimp was put into a stomacher bag together with 90 mL of ultrapure
water and they were subjected to stomacher treatment for 2 minutes. The solution obtained was
used as the stock solution and stored with it cooled with ice until the start of the test. Beer, orange
juice, and milk were used as the stock solutions with them undiluted. The stock solution of each food
was diluted serially with ultrapure water at ratios of 1:1, 1:10, 1:100, 1:1000, and 1:10000 to obtain
the test solutions. 10 μL of test solution was dropped on a swab for each model, and the luminescence
intensity of the swab was measured. Measurement was performed 6 times for each model.
A standard curve was created from the obtained measured values, and the limit of detection of each
model was calculated from the blank value (LOD=Mean+3 x SD). When 0 was contained in a blank
value, the mean value of the dilution level for which all measurement values were 1 RLU or greater
was found, and that mean value was taken to be the detection limit.
(5) Measurement of microbial suspension
Measurement was performed for 3 kinds of microbial suspensions.
Escherichia coli IFO3972
Staphylococcu aureus IFO12732
Saccharomyces cerevisiae NBRC10217
E. coli and S. aureus were inoculated in 10 mL-heart infusion broths (Eiken Chemical Co., Ltd.),
respectively, and were subjected to shake incubation at 37°C over night. 10 mL of the culture
solutions were centrifuged at 4500 rpm for 10 minutes. The supernatant liquids were discarded and
the residues were suspended in 10 mL of sterile physiological saline solutions. After that, they were
centrifuged at 4500 rpm for 10 minutes again, and the supernatant liquids were discarded and the
residues were suspended in the sterile physiological saline solutions to obtain the stock solutions. S.
cerevisiae was streak-smeared on potato dextrose agar madia (Nissui Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.), and
cultivated at 30°C for 2 days. The cultivated colonies of S. cerevisiae were suspended in sterile
physiological saline solution and centrifuged at 4500 rpm for 10 minutes. After the supernatant
liquid was discarded and the residue was suspended in sterile physiological saline solution, it was
centrifuged at 4500 rpm for 10 minutes and suspended in sterile physiological saline solutions.
Bacterial numbers were adjusted using a counting chamber to obtain the testing stock solutions. The
FCG Research Institute,Inc.
4
concentrations of E. coli, S. aureus, and S. cerevisiae of the testing stock solutions were 3.2 x 10
CFU/mL, 4.1 x 10
9
CFU/mL, and 2.5 x 10
8
9
CFU/mL, respectively. The respective stock solutions
were serially diluted with sterile physiological saline solution to obtain 10 9 CFU/mL, 10 8 CFU/mL,
10 7 CFU/mL, 10 6 CFU/mL, 10 5 CFU/mL, and 10 4 CFU/mL solutions of E. coli or S. aureus, or 10 8
CFU/mL, 10 7 CFU/mL, 10 6 CFU/mL, 10 5 CFU/mL, 10 4 CFU/mL, and 10 3 CFU/mL solutions of S.
cerevisiae as the test solutions. 10 μL of test solution was dropped on a swab for each model, and the
luminescence intensity was measured. The frequency of the measurement for a test solution was 6
times.
A standard curve was calculated from the obtained measured values, and the limit of detection of
each model was calculated from the blank value (LOD=Mean+3 x SD). When 0 was contained in a
blank value, the mean value of the dilution level for which all measurement values were 1 RLU or
greater was found, and that mean value was taken to be the detection limit.
Results of the measurements
(1) The measurement test of ATP solution
Table 2 shows the summary of the measured values (RLU) of ATP measured for each model, and Fig.
2 shows the standard curve. In addition, Fig. 3 shows the repeatability in the measurement of ATP
10
-12
mol/assay. In the case of SuperSnap, the concentration of ATP of 10 -12 mol/assay was near the
detection limit and the variation in numerical values was small, so the repeatability was evaluated
at ATP 10 -13 mol/assay.
For the lower limit of detection, the sensitivity of SuperSnap was good, and detection up to 10-15mol
was possible. LuciPac Pen, CleanTrace and AccuPoint have detected to 10-14 mol. LuciPac Pen and
CleanTrace were linear to 10-10 mol, and have detected high concentration compared with other
models. LuciPac Pen had good repeatability of ATP measured values (CV value = 2.9%, Fig. 3), and
AccuPoint showed substantial variation in numeric values.
Table 2. Measurement of ATP solution by each hygiene monitoring system.
mol/assay
Swab
Mean of Luminescence：RLU　(CV value)
Blank
10 -16
10 -15
10 -14
10 -13
10-12
10 -11
10 -10
LuciPac Pen
12.8
(13.9%)
11.6
(18.4%)
12.4
(19.5%)
28.6
(18.4%)
169.3
(8.6%)
1799
(2.9%)
18359
(5.8%)
182374
(9.7%)
CleanTrace
11.7
(23.9%)
12.8
(22.3%)
18.6
(24.2%)
89.8
(23.0%)
840.8
(18.5%)
8389
(15.3%)
79670
(19.4%)
20.1
545949 1462437
(10.9%)
(4.8%) (3.7×10 -15)
UltraSnap
0
(-)
0
(-)
0
(-)
6.6
(22.7%)
96.8
(10.1%)
989
(9.5%)
6186
(1.4%)
7693
(0.9%)
7927
(1.0%)
11.1
(1.8×10 -14)
SuperSnap
0.8
(50.0%)
0.4
(166%)
7.1
(21.3%)
74.8
(9.8%)
770
(7.7%)
6111
(4.1%)
8422
(1.5%)
9785
(0.8%)
9966
(0.5%)
15.7
(3.3×10 -16)
AccuPoint
2
(229%)
1.1
(193%)
1.2
(249%)
17.2
(80.8%)
419
(25.8%)
3874
(44.5%)
54937
(54.7%)
88892
(35.3%)
15.7
92183
(24.0%) (2.8×10 -15)
*
10-9
LOD*
RLU (mol)
18.1
999999
(0%) (9.9×10 -15)
(n=10)
limit of detection
FCG Research Institute,Inc.
5
10,000,000
(n=10)
Luminescence（RLU）
1,000,000
100,000
10,000
CleanTra
ce
UltraSna
p
SuperSn
ap
AccuPoin
t
1,000
100
10
1
4-13 10
5 -12 10
6-11 10
7 -10 10
8 -9
101-16 102-15 103-14 10
ATP (mol/assay)
Fig. 2. ATP standard curve.
200
(n=10)
Relative BL intensity (%)
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
LuciPac Pen
CleanTrace
UltraSnap
SuperSnap*
AccuPoint
*
In the evaluation of ATP10-12mol/assay was close to the detection limit. Therefore, it was evaluated
by ATP10-13mol/assay.
Fig. 3. Repeatability of measurement results of ATP (10-12mol/assay).
FCG Research Institute,Inc.
6
(2) Luminescence persistence test
Table 3 shows the summary of the measured values (RLU) from the result of measuring ATP 10
-12
mol/assay every time elapsed, and Fig. 4 shows the progress of increase and decrease.
LuciPac Pen had the best persistence of luminescence intensity. Clean Trace had the second highest
persistence, but there was the trend toward slight increase in the luminescence as the time passed.
In the case of SystemSure, the luminescence increased after 20 seconds, and decreased after that. In
the case of other 2 models, substantial decrease in luminescence occurred as the time passed.
Table 3. Mean of Luminescence (RLU) of ATP(10-12mol/assay) were measured by elapsed time .
Time(sec.)
Swab
LuciPac Pen
CleanTrace
UltraSnap
SuperSnap
AccuPoint
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1510
7820
953
5252
3171
1532
8023
1060
4462
-
1543
8132
1013
3546
1301
1546
8195
922
2768
-
1546
8210
834
2168
719
1543
8231
755
1705
-
1539
8228
686
1357
518
(n=6)
Relative BL intensity (%)
120
100
80
CleanTrace
60
UltraSnap
40
SuperSnap
(n=6)
20
AccuPoint
LuciPac Pen
0
0
20
40
60
80
100 120
Time (sec. )
Fig. 4. Luminescence stability of ATP (10-12mol/assay).
FCG Research Institute,Inc.
7
(3) Measurement test of AMP solution
Table 4 and Fig. 5 show the measured values (RLU) of AMP measured for each model. Power of test
was evaluated by subtracting the blank value from the mean.
Only LuciPac Pen could detect it well, while other models could not detect it.
Table 4. Mean of Luminescence (RLU) of AMP-Na (10-12mol/assay) by each hygiene monitoring
system.
LuciPac Pen
8
1307 (13.8%)
1299
Blank
Mean (CV value)
Mean-Blank
CleanTrace
18
10.5 (23.2%)
<0
UltraSnap
0
0 (-)
0
SuperSnap
1
1 (0%)
0
AccuPoint
0
0 (-)
0
(n=6)
10,000
(n=6)
Luminescence（RLU）*
1,000
100
10
1
LuciPac Pen CleanTrace
UltraSnap
SuperSnap
AccuPoint
*
Was evaluated by subtracting the blank value from the measured values.
Fig. 5. Measurement of AMP-Na (10-12mol/assay).
FCG Research Institute,Inc.
8
(4) Measurement of food suspensions
Table 5 and Fig. 6 show the measured values (RLU) of ground pork measured for each model. In the
similar way, Table 6 and Fig. 7 show the measured values of shrimp suspensions, and Table 7 and
Fig. 8 show the measured values of beer. Table 8 and Fig. 9 show the measured values of orange juice,
and Table 9 and Fig. 10 show the measured values of milk.
Although LuciPac Pen and CleanTrace have detected up to 1:100 dilution level by measurement of
ground pork, as compared with CleanTrace, LuciPac Pen had linearity at a 1:100 dilution level and
was especially good. Especially the power of test of LuciPac Pen was good for measurement of shrimp,
and was not less than the limit of detection at a 1:10000 dilution level. The measured value of beer
had a low tendency compared with other food. Although the LuciPac pen could detect at a 1:100
dilution level in measurement of beer, CleanTrace, UltraSnap and AccuPoint were hardly able to
detect. In the measurement of orange juice, the sensitivity of each model was high, and each detected
to a 1:10000 dilution level. In the measurement of milk, SuperSnap could detect up to a 1:1000
dilution level, and CleanTrace and UltraSnap could detect up to a 1:100 dilution level. The 1:100
dilution of the milk of LuciPac Pen was almost the same as the limit of detection.
Table 5. Mean of Luminescence (RLU) of food suspensions (ground pork) by each hygiene monitoring
system.
Dilution
Blank
Swab
LuciPac Pen
32.8
CleanTrace
10.8
UltraSnap
0
SuperSnap
0
AccuPoint
0
*limit of detection (RLU)
1:1
1:10
1:100
1:1000
1:10000
LOD*
2624
87.5
2.8
51.2
37
724
36.2
0
5
0
98.5
19.2
0
0.3
0
32.8
13.3
4.3
0
0
28.3
11.7
0
0
0
45
15.6
2.8
5
37
(n=6)
10,000
Luminescence（RLU）
(n=6)
LuciPac Pen
1,000
CleanTrace
100
UltraSnap
SuperSnap
10
AccuPoint
1
1:1
1:10
1:100
1:1000 1:10000
Dilution
Fig. 6. Standard curve of food suspensions (ground pork).
FCG Research Institute,Inc.
9
Table 6. Mean of Luminescence (RLU) of food suspensions (shrimp) by each hygiene monitoring
system.
Dilution
Blank
Swab
LuciPac Pen
32.8
CleanTrace
10.8
UltraSnap
0
SuperSnap
0
AccuPoint
0
*limit of detection (RLU)
1:1
1:10
1:100
1:1000
1:10000
LOD*
105519
5175
420
3282
1810
22033
1013
109
791
634
2676
77.8
6.2
52.2
5.7
314
14.2
0
4
0
55.5
28.3
0
0.2
0
45
15.6
6.2
4
634
(n=6)
1,000,000
Luminescence（RLU）
(n=6)
100,000
10,000
LuciPac
Pen
CleanTrace
UltraSnap
1,000
SuperSnap
100
AccuPoint
10
1
1:1
1:10
1:100
1:1000 1:10000
Dilution
Fig. 7. Standard curve of food suspensions (shrimp).
FCG Research Institute,Inc.
10
Table 7. Mean of Luminescence (RLU) of beer by each hygiene monitoring system.
Dilution
Blank
Swab
LuciPac Pen
21
CleanTrace
16.5
UltraSnap
0
SuperSnap
0.2
AccuPoint
0
*limit of detection (RLU)
1:1
1:10
1:100
1:1000
1:10000
LOD*
2340
21.7
0
7.8
1.2
491
16
0
1.7
0.7
73
16.8
0
0.7
0
26
16.7
0
0
2
20.3
13
0
0.2
8.5
31.4
24.6
ND
1.7
ND
(n=6)
10,000
Luminescence（RLU）
(n=6)
1,000
LuciPac
Pen
CleanTrace
UltraSnap
100
SuperSnap
10
AccuPoint
1
1:1
1:10
1:100
1:1000 1:10000
Dilution
Fig. 8. Standard curve of beer.
FCG Research Institute,Inc.
11
Table 8. Mean of Luminescence (RLU) of orange juice by each hygiene monitoring system.
Dilution
Blank
Swab
LuciPac Pen
21
CleanTrace
16.5
UltraSnap
0
SuperSnap
0.2
AccuPoint
0
*limit of detection (RLU)
1:1
1:10
1:100
1:1000
1:10000
LOD*
83000
173798
6440
9163
99999
18513
69665
5544
8283
61660
2141
7389
884
5779
2189
215
712
80
482
177
34.5
86.2
7.2
71.2
15.8
31.4
24.6
7.2
71.2
15.8
(n=6)
1,000,000
Luminescence（RLU）
(n=6)
100,000
AccuPoint
CleanTrace
10,000
UltraSnap
1,000
SuperSnap
100
LuciPac
Pen
10
1
1:1
1:10
1:100
1:1000 1:10000
Dilution
Fig. 9. Standard curve of orange juice.
FCG Research Institute,Inc.
12
Table 9. Mean of Luminescence (RLU) of milk by each hygiene monitoring system.
Dilution
Blank
Swab
LuciPac Pen
21
CleanTrace
16.5
UltraSnap
0
SuperSnap
0.2
AccuPoint
0
*limit of detection (RLU)
1:1
1:10
1:100
1:1000
1:10000
LOD*
505
1500
115
939
256
106
353
32.7
279.7
66.7
29.2
47.3
3
30.5
1.8
19.3
17.5
0
2.7
0
13
12.8
0
0.3
4
31.4
24.6
3
2.7
66.7
(n=6)
10,000
Luminescence（RLU）
(n=6)
CleanTrace
1,000
UltraSnap
100
SuperSnap
AccuPoint
10
LuciPac Pen
1
1:1
1:10
1:100
1:1000 1:10000
Dilution
Fig. 10. Standard curve of milk.
(5) Measurement of microbial suspensions
Table 10 and Fig. 11 show the measured values (RLU) of E. coli suspension measured by each model.
In addition, Fig. 12 shows the repeatability in the measurement of E. coli 10
5
CFU/assay. In a
similar manner, Table 11 and Fig. 13 show the measured values of S. aureus suspension, Fig. 14
shows the repeatability in the measurement of S. aureus 10
6
CFU/assay, and Table 12 and Fig. 15
show the measured values of S. cerevisiae suspension, and Fig. 16 shows the repeatability in the
measurement of S. cerevisiae 10 4 CFU/assay.
In the measurement of E. coli and S. aureus, LuciPac Pen, CleanTrace and SuperSnap could detect
103 CFU. In measurement of S. cerevisiae, LuciPac Pen and SuperSnap showed a high power of test,
and exceeded the detection limit in 101 CFU of measurement. The coefficient of variation (CV value)
of the measured value in 3 strains of LuciPac Pen was low. Also, LuciPac Pen had good repeatability
of 3 strains of measured values.
FCG Research Institute,Inc.
13
Table 10. Mean of Luminescence (RLU) of microbial suspension (E. coli ) by each hygiene monitoring
system.
CFU/assay
Blank
Swab
LuciPac Pen
20.8
CleanTrace
9.2
UltraSnap
0
SuperSnap
0
AccuPoint
1.7
*limit of detection (RLU)
10 7
10 6
10 5
10 4
10 3
10 2
LOD*
16777
130412
1318
8176
4754
1378
14004
141
5370
591
171
1594
11.3
379
30.5
39
77.2
0.5
18
0.8
21.3
24.8
0
2.3
0
19.7
13.3
0.2
0
0
24.5
15.5
11.3
2.3
591
(n=6)
1,000,000
Luminescence（RLU）
(n=6)
100,000
CleanTrace
10,000
UltraSnap
1,000
SuperSnap
100
AccuPoint
10
LuciPac Pen
1
107
107
6
10
106
105
105
104
104
3
10
103
2
10
102
CFU/assay
Fig. 11. Standard curve of microbial suspension (E. coli ).
200
(n=6)
Relative BL intensity (%)
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
CV value
LuciPac Pen
CleanTrace
UltraSnap
SuperSnap
AccuPoint
11.1%
13.4%
23.2%
13%
77%
Fig. 12. Repeatability of measurement results of
microbial suspension (E. coli : 105CFU/assay).
FCG Research Institute,Inc.
14
Table 11. Mean of Luminescence (RLU) of microbial suspension (S. aureus )
by each hygiene
monitoring system.
CFU/assay
Blank
Swab
LuciPac Pen
20.8
CleanTrace
9.2
UltraSnap
0
SuperSnap
0
AccuPoint
1.7
*limit of detection (RLU)
10 7
10 6
10 5
10 4
10 3
10 2
LOD*
38801
60213
3250
5847
20759
3950
5996
440
554
2531
448
718
55.2
86.2
313
65.7
107
6.8
15.3
19.3
28
18.5
0.3
2.8
0
21
11
0
1.7
0
24.5
15.5
6.8
2.8
19.3
(n=6)
100,000
Luminescence（RLU）
(n=6)
CleanTrace
10,000
UltraSnap
1,000
SuperSnap
100
AccuPoint
10
LuciPac Pen
1
107
107
106
106
105
105
104
104
103
103
102
102
CFU/assay
Fig. 13. Standard curve of microbial suspension (S. aureus ).
200
(n=6)
Relative BL intensity (%)
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
CV value
LuciPac Pen
CleanTrace
UltraSnap
SuperSnap
AccuPoint
5.9%
15.8%
12.4%
29.8%
15.8%
Fig. 14. Reproducibility of measurement results of
microbial suspension (S. aureus : 106 CFU/assay).
FCG Research Institute,Inc.
15
Table 12. Mean of Luminescence (RLU) of microbial suspension (S. cerevisiae )
by each hygiene
monitoring system.
CFU/assay
Blank
Swab
LuciPac Pen
20.8
CleanTrace
9.2
UltraSnap
0
SuperSnap
0
AccuPoint
1.7
*limit of detection (RLU)
10 6
10 5
10 4
10 3
10 2
10 1
LOD*
312212
162898
6088
8772
97430
34638
29104
2767
8142
36002
2915
3292
355
4036
5437
363
349
26
428
562
50
42.3
1.8
36
43.5
24.5
13
0
4
0.5
24.5
15.5
26
4
43.5
(n=6)
1,000,000
Luminescence（RLU）
(n=6)
100,000
CleanTrace
10,000
UltraSnap
1,000
SuperSnap
100
AccuPoint
10
LuciPac Pen
1
106
106
5
10
105
104
104
103
103
2
10
102
1
10
101
CFU/assay
Fig. 15. Standard curve of microbial suspension (S. cerevisiae ).
200
(n=6)
Relative BL intensity (%)
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
CV value
LuciPac Pen
CleanTrace
UltraSnap
SuperSnap
AccuPoint
15.2%
28%
38%
24.4%
24%
Fig. 16. Reproducibility of measurement results of
microbial suspension (S. cerevisiae : 104 CFU/assay).
FCG Research Institute,Inc.
16
Summary of the results
(1) The measurement test of ATP solution
In the case of measurement of ATP, detection sensitivity of SuperSnap was good, and could detect
10-15mol. LuciPac Pen, CleanTrace and AccuPoint were able to detect up to 10-14 mol. LuciPac Pen
and CleanTrace were linear to 10-10 mol, and have detected high concentration compared with other
models. LuciPac Pen had good repeatability of ATP measured values, and AccuPoint showed
substantial variation in numeric values.
(2) Luminescence persistence test
LuciPac Pen had the best persistence of luminescence intensity. Clean Trace had the second highest
persistence, but there was the trend toward slight increase in the luminescence as the time passed.
In the case of SystemSure, the luminescence increased after 20 seconds, and decreased after that. In
the case of other 2 models, substantial decrease in luminescence occurred as the time passed.
(3) Measurement test of AMP solution
In the measurement of AMP, only LuciPac Pen could detect it well, while other models could not
detect it.
(4) Measurement of food suspensions
In the measurement of food suspension, LuciPac Pen had basically high detection ability, especially
in the case of ground pork, shrimp, and beer, good results were obtained. In the case of orange juice,
the sensitivity of each model was high. In measurement of milk, the power of test of SuperSnap was
good, and the power of test of CleanTrace and UltraSnap were good in that order.
(5) Measurement of microbial suspensions
In measurement of E.coli and S. aureus, LuciPac Pen, CleanTrace and SuperSnap could detect 103
CFU. In measurement of S. cerevisiae, LuciPac Pen and SuperSnap showed high power of test, and
exceeded the detection limit in 101 CFU of measurement. Also, LuciPac Pen had good repeatability of
3 strains of measured values.
FCG Research Institute,Inc.
17
Data Appendix
Table 13. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of ATP solution by LuciPac Pen.
mol/assay
Sample
Blank
10-16
10 -15
10-14
10 -13
10 -12
10 -11
10 -10
10 -9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mean
SD
CV value
13
13
16
14
11
13
11
10
12
15
12.8
1.8
0.139
12
15
13
11
15
12
9
12
9
9
11.7
2.1
0.184
13
18
12
12
10
9
11
12
12
15
12.4
2.4
0.195
30
28
30
38
18
28
34
22
29
29
28.6
5.3
0.184
191
171
168
173
167
187
147
179
143
167
169.3
14.5
0.086
1823
1751
1709
1747
1879
1796
1783
1819
1800
1880
1798.7
52.3
0.029
17355
17220
20590
19063
17431
17942
17239
19078
18454
19214
18358.6
1064.2
0.058
210658
181245
193361
163232
193040
152068
203216
172337
187186
167397
182374
17615.9
0.097
999999
999999
999999
999999
999999
999999
999999
999999
999999
999999
999999
0
0
Table 14. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of ATP solution by Clean Trace.
mol/assay
Sample
Blank
10-16
10 -15
10-14
10 -13
10 -12
10 -11
10 -10
10 -9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mean
SD
CV value
11
9
8
9
9
13
15
15
12
16
11.7
2.8
0.239
11
14
16
12
9
10
14
19
11
12
12.8
2.9
0.223
22
24
10
13
20
24
19
16
22
16
18.6
4.5
0.242
73
117
75
121
113
59
75
74
98
93
89.8
20.6
0.230
913
964
591
924
652
893
1093
933
638
807
840.8
155.7
0.185
6648
8378
8452
10625
7735
6789
10099
7224
9462
8477
8388.9
1283.1
0.153
92014
100244
61850
68654
46122
89013
88630
87048
77982
85139
79669.6
15475.2
0.194
636442
511342
536412
450690
554773
555510
581868
645242
491621
495591
545949.1
59462.5
0.109
1381359
1425551
1536507
1354774
1404669
1497564
1485961
1428412
1574128
1535448
1462437
70071
0.048
Table 15. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of ATP solution by UltraSnap.
mol/assay
Sample
Blank
10-16
10 -15
10-14
10 -13
10 -12
10 -11
10 -10
10 -9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mean
SD
CV value
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
3
8
7
8
5
6
7
7
8
7
6.6
1.5
0.227
96
104
113
84
85
96
112
94
97
87
96.8
9.8
0.101
1067
952
927
1055
1064
1003
877
791
1050
1099
988.5
94.4
0.095
6118
6241
6215
6313
6278
6089
6130
6074
6113
6290
6186.1
86.2
0.014
7813
7599
7747
7642
7652
7597
7742
7751
7727
7656
7692.6
69.2
0.009
7990
8009
7955
8016
7954
7987
7784
7933
7788
7856
7927.2
82.8
0.010
FCG Research Institute,Inc.
18
Table 16. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of ATP solution by SuperSnap.
mol/assay
Sample
Blank
10-16
10 -15
10-14
10 -13
10 -12
10 -11
10 -10
10 -9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mean
SD
CV value
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0.8
0.4
0.500
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0.4
0.7
1.658
8
7
7
7
8
9
9
7
5
4
7.1
1.5
0.213
72
76
80
73
62
65
71
80
86
83
74.8
7.3
0.098
817
841
849
772
823
732
708
758
658
740
769.8
59.3
0.077
6286
6221
5689
6301
6000
6014
5659
6423
6324
6195
6111.2
251.5
0.041
8546
8548
8322
8428
8473
8571
8192
8495
8252
8390
8421.7
124.2
0.015
9761
9834
9856
9880
9843
9692
9863
9654
9702
9768
9785.3
77.1
0.008
9999
9999
9847
9999
9999
9895
9999
9980
9942
9999
9965.8
51.5
0.005
Table 17. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of ATP solution by AccuPoint.
mol/assay
Sample
10-16
10 -15
10-14
10 -13
10 -12
10 -11
10 -10
10 -9
1
15
0
2
5
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
5
0
7
6
0
0
7
0
2
8
0
2
9
0
0
10
0
0
11
12
Mean
2
1.1
SD
4.6
2.1
CV value
2.291
1.926
*
Not included in the calculation
0
2
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.2
3.0
2.494
24
41
0
20
19
0
39
9
16
4
17.2
13.9
0.808
488
290
344
412
483
386
559
464
552
207
418.5
107.9
0.258
4678
2658
2125
2583
2648
2851
4552
6583
7246
2818
3874.2
1722.9
0.445
69604
99999
64162
99999
74191
48563
13128
31455
30292
17977
54937
30075.8
0.547
99999
99999
99999
99999
99999
0*
99999
99999
33
99999
0*
99999 *
88891.7
31416.3
0.353
99999
99999
99999
0*
99999
99999
29657
99999
99999
99999
92183.2
22106.4
0.240
Blank
FCG Research Institute,Inc.
19
Table 18. Luminescence(RLU) stability of ATP by LuciPac Pen.
Time(sec.)
Sample
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
1772
1171
1519
1468
1259
1871
1510
251.2
0.166
1794
1192
1545
1490
1286
1884
1532
248.5
0.162
1799
1198
1554
1511
1307
1887
1543
244.9
0.159
1798
1198
1550
1518
1321
1888
1546
242.6
0.157
1788
1199
1545
1542
1328
1875
1546
236.2
0.153
1771
1194
1557
1545
1332
1857
1543
229.9
0.149
1755
1192
1547
1539
1361
1837
1539
218.9
0.142
Table 19. Luminescence(RLU) stability of ATP by Clean Trace.
Time(sec.)
Sample
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
6171
9626
7665
8177
6828
8451
7820
1119.1
0.143
6315
9701
7971
8505
7101
8547
8023
1087.2
0.136
6450
9709
8158
8635
7212
8627
8132
1053.7
0.130
6537
9640
8297
8783
7237
8676
8195
1028.1
0.125
6575
9584
8363
8835
7226
8675
8210
1013.2
0.123
6574
9571
8412
8899
7295
8637
8231
1005.1
0.122
6597
9488
8400
8958
7272
8654
8228
992.1
0.121
Table 20. Luminescence(RLU) stability of ATP by UltraSnap.
Time(sec.)
Sample
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
1042
938
1019
958
915
845
953
65.4
0.069
1108
975
1143
1082
1014
1040
1060
56.9
0.054
1031
905
1088
1037
969
1046
1013
59.5
0.059
927
820
986
943
883
970
922
56
0.061
831
742
886
853
801
890
834
51.3
0.061
749
673
798
775
726
811
755
46.5
0.062
678
611
721
704
660
743
686
43.1
0.063
FCG Research Institute,Inc.
20
Table 21. Luminescence(RLU) stability of ATP by SuperSnap.
Time(sec.)
Sample
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
5911
3185
5432
5864
5517
5602
5252
940.4
0.179
5198
2452
4529
5121
4715
4755
4462
928.3
0.208
4248
1812
3537
4201
3741
3738
3546
816.9
0.230
3366
1369
2766
3303
2916
2887
2768
663
0.240
2636
1055
2176
2628
2291
2224
2168
530.4
0.245
2077
823
1711
2084
1804
1731
1705
422.4
0.248
1650
650
1383
1661
1444
1351
1357
338.2
0.249
Table 22. Luminescence(RLU) stability of ATP by AccuPoint.
Time(sec.)
Sample
0
40
80
120
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
2648
3248
4315
2431
3688
2697
3171
661.8
0.209
1399
1448
1225
1221
1523
991
1301
177.4
0.136
941
887
606
668
796
416
719
178.2
0.248
634
722
449
490
536
274
518
141.7
0.274
Table 23. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of AMP-Na (10-12mol/assay) by each hygiene monitoring
systems.
Sample
Blank
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
LuciPac Pen
8
1018
1375
1126
1339
1552
1430
1306.7
181.2
0.139
CleanTrace
18
14
12
10
10
11
6
10.5
2.4
0.232
UltraSnap
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
FCG Research Institute,Inc.
SuperSnap
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
AccuPoint
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
21
Table 24. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of food suspensions(ground pork) by LuciPac Pen.
Sample
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
Blank
37
30
32
32
39
27
32.8
4.1
0.124
1:1
2780
2620
2763
2791
2010
2782
2624.3
280.9
0.107
1:10
691
702
721
694
692
845
724.2
55
0.076
1:100
90
76
114
114
114
83
98.5
16
0.163
1:1000
35
35
40
27
31
29
32.8
4.3
0.132
1:10000
27
29
28
34
25
27
28.3
2.8
0.099
Table 25. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of food suspensions(ground pork) by Clean Trace.
Sample
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
Blank
10
12
13
12
9
9
10.8
1.6
0.145
1:1
105
88
87
90
82
73
87.5
9.6
0.110
1:10
36
37
38
32
39
35
36.2
2.3
0.063
1:100
22
22
19
18
15
19
19.2
2.4
0.126
1:1000
15
15
12
13
13
12
13.3
1.2
0.094
1:10000
11
14
11
8
10
16
11.7
2.6
0.225
Table 26. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of food suspensions(ground pork) by UltraSnap.
Sample
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
Blank
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
1:1
2
2
3
4
3
3
2.8
0.7
0.243
1:10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
1:100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
FCG Research Institute,Inc.
1:1000
0
26
0
0
0
0
4.3
9.7
2.236
1:10000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
22
Table 27. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of food suspensions(ground pork) by SuperSnap.
Sample
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
Blank
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
1:1
46
48
55
42
57
59
51.2
6.2
0.121
1:10
5
5
6
5
5
4
5
0.6
0.115
1:100
1
0
0
0
0
1
0.3
0.5
1.414
1:1000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
1:10000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
Table 28. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of food suspensions(ground pork) by AccuPoint.
Sample
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
Blank
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
1:1
55
41
25
62
12
27
37
17.5
0.473
1:10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
1:100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
FCG Research Institute,Inc.
1:1000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
1:10000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
23
Table 29. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of food suspensions (shrimp) by LuciPac Pen.
Sample
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
Blank
37
30
32
32
39
27
32.8
4.1
0.124
1:1
91720
119849
105217
115070
94997
106261
105519
9986.1
0.095
1:10
26483
24208
9643
23594
23444
24829
22033.5
5631.6
0.256
1:100
2389
2718
2580
2942
2567
2859
2675.8
186.8
0.070
1:1000
335
350
270
303
318
310
314.3
25.2
0.080
1:10000
52
61
64
55
48
53
55.5
5.4
0.098
Table 30. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of food suspensions (shrimp) by Clean Trace.
Sample
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
Blank
10
12
13
12
9
9
10.8
1.6
0.145
1:1
3844
5060
6388
4973
7212
3572
5174.8
1292
0.250
1:10
975
1101
1004
765
1342
892
1013.2
179.7
0.177
1:100
75
79
79
71
79
84
77.8
4
0.052
1:1000
14
13
13
15
15
15
14.2
0.9
0.063
1:10000
9
12
17
50
34
48
28.3
16.6
0.587
Table 31. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of food suspensions (shrimp) by UltraSnap.
Sample
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
Blank
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
1:1
515
337
326
334
277
736
420.8
159.4
0.379
1:10
102
117
106
106
110
110
108.5
4.7
0.043
1:100
5
6
7
8
6
5
6.2
1.1
0.173
FCG Research Institute,Inc.
1:1000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
1:10000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
24
Table 32. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of food suspensions (shrimp) by SuperSnap.
Sample
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
Blank
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
1:1
3240
3082
3595
3087
3114
3575
3282.2
220.5
0.067
1:10
515
864
881
816
801
868
790.8
126.7
0.160
1:100
47
58
50
50
52
56
52.2
3.8
0.072
1:1000
4
4
4
4
3
5
4
0.6
0.144
1:10000
0
0
0
0
0
1
0.2
0.4
2.236
Table 33. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of food suspensions (shrimp) by AccuPoint.
Sample
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
Blank
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
1:1
749
1063
3707
1470
2533
1343
1810.8
1011.5
0.559
1:10
422
464
473
286
1195
966
634.3
328.1
0.517
1:100
0
21
0
0
13
0
5.7
8.3
1.472
FCG Research Institute,Inc.
1:1000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
1:10000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
25
Table 34. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of beer by LuciPac Pen.
Sample
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
Blank
22
28
19
20
17
20
21
3.5
0.165
1:1
2454
3202
2954
2250
1883
1296
2339.8
637.7
0.273
1:10
603
528
432
568
324
489
490.7
92.4
0.188
1:100
72
74
91
80
56
65
73
11
0.151
1:1000
23
23
28
22
33
27
26
3.8
0.147
1:10000
18
24
19
14
21
26
20.3
3.9
0.194
Table 35. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of beer by Clean Trace.
Sample
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
Blank
17
13
17
19
20
13
16.5
2.7
0.163
1:1
24
20
26
20
24
16
21.7
3.3
0.155
1:10
17
12
17
14
18
18
16
2.2
0.140
1:100
25
15
15
13
17
16
16.8
3.8
0.229
1:1000
19
14
12
19
17
19
16.7
2.7
0.165
1:10000
17
10
14
11
16
10
13
2.8
0.218
Table 36. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of beer by UltraSnap.
Sample
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
Blank
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
1:1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
1:10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
1:100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
FCG Research Institute,Inc.
1:1000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
1:10000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
26
Table 37. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of beer by SuperSnap.
Sample
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
Blank
0
0
0
0
0
1
0.2
0.4
2.236
1:1
8
1
9
9
11
9
7.8
3.2
0.406
1:10
2
2
2
1
2
1
1.7
0.5
0.283
1:100
0
0
0
1
1
2
0.7
0.7
1.118
1:1000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
1:10000
1
0
0
0
0
0
0.2
0.4
2.236
Table 38. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of beer by AccuPoint.
Sample
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
Blank
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
1:1
0
0
0
0
7
0
1.2
2.6
2.236
1:10
0
0
0
4
0
0
0.7
1.5
2.236
1:100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
FCG Research Institute,Inc.
1:1000
0
12
0
0
0
0
2
4.5
2.236
1:10000
0
6
0
7
20
18
8.5
7.9
0.931
27
Table 39. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of orange juice by LuciPac Pen.
Sample
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
Blank
22
28
19
20
17
20
21
3.5
0.165
1:1
86781
87154
93528
66344
78254
85944
83000.8
8669.9
0.104
1:10
17890
17327
18047
22033
19061
16720
18513
1728.1
0.093
1:100
2228
1873
2293
2361
1834
2259
2141.3
207.8
0.097
1:1000
198
231
230
241
227
163
215
26.8
0.124
1:10000
35
23
29
47
46
27
34.5
9.2
0.267
Table 40. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of orange juice by Clean Trace.
Sample
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
Blank
17
13
17
19
20
13
16.5
2.7
0.163
1:1
254868
193268
181947
141044
178993
92668
173798
49497
0.285
1:10
67016
66597
81612
62788
59273
80703
69664.8
8527.3
0.122
1:100
6419
6243
9163
7627
8470
6414
7389.3
1123.8
0.152
1:1000
838
688
724
695
621
707
712.2
64.8
0.091
1:10000
109
91
96
81
80
60
86.2
15.2
0.177
Table 41. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of orange juice by UltraSnap.
Sample
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
Blank
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
1:1
6243
6359
6529
6462
6500
6546
6439.8
106.9
0.017
1:10
5889
5815
5171
5685
5543
5162
5544.2
287.9
0.052
1:100
949
748
844
876
944
943
884
72.4
0.082
FCG Research Institute,Inc.
1:1000
88
81
78
80
76
77
80
4
0.049
1:10000
9
8
7
7
5
7
7.2
1.2
0.169
28
Table 42. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of orange juice by SuperSnap.
Sample
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
Blank
0
0
0
0
0
1
0.2
0.4
2.236
1:1
9376
9090
9000
9177
9351
8986
9163.3
155
0.017
1:10
8249
8352
8379
8194
8228
8295
8282.8
66.1
0.008
1:100
6019
5444
5987
5860
5642
5722
5779
200.7
0.035
1:1000
638
639
541
405
242
429
482.3
140.7
0.292
1:10000
66
93
72
64
65
67
71.2
10.1
0.142
Table 43. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of orange juice by AccuPoint.
Sample
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
Blank
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
1:1
99999
99999
99999
99999
99999
99999
99999
0
0
1:10
47036
39146
87874
86327
62049
47528
61660
19219.1
0.312
1:100
2750
2022
2694
1082
2362
2221
2188.5
555.9
0.254
FCG Research Institute,Inc.
1:1000
110
197
160
132
166
296
176.8
59.8
0.338
1:10000
22
10
16
27
15
5
15.8
7.2
0.458
29
Table 44. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of milk by LuciPac Pen.
Sample
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
Blank
22
28
19
20
17
20
21
3.5
0.165
1:1
301
463
433
579
657
594
504.5
119.1
0.236
1:10
144
117
99
83
75
120
106.3
23.4
0.221
1:100
25
42
18
11
25
54
29.2
14.6
0.499
1:1000
16
23
20
23
16
18
19.3
2.9
0.151
1:10000
12
10
9
7
20
20
13
5.2
0.397
Table 45. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of milk by Clean Trace.
Sample
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
Blank
17
13
17
19
20
13
16.5
2.7
0.163
1:1
1463
873
1557
1753
1923
1431
1500
328
0.219
1:10
268
438
341
332
382
359
353.3
51.5
0.146
1:100
44
54
43
49
38
56
47.3
6.3
0.133
1:1000
20
21
12
18
20
14
17.5
3.4
0.192
1:10000
13
9
12
11
19
13
12.8
3.1
0.240
Table 46. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of milk by UltraSnap.
Sample
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
Blank
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
1:1
114
118
112
110
128
109
115.2
6.4
0.056
1:10
28
33
37
36
32
30
32.7
3.1
0.096
1:100
4
2
3
3
3
3
3
0.6
0.192
FCG Research Institute,Inc.
1:1000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
1:10000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
30
Table 47. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of milk by SuperSnap.
Sample
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
Blank
0
0
0
0
0
1
0.2
0.4
2.236
1:1
602
1083
894
803
1193
1059
939
197.4
0.210
1:10
259
270
263
305
297
284
279.7
17.1
0.061
1:100
30
35
31
31
34
22
30.5
4.2
0.137
1:1000
3
3
3
2
2
3
2.7
0.5
0.177
1:10000
1
0
1
0
0
0
0.3
0.5
1.414
Table 48. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of milk by AccuPoint.
Sample
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
Blank
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
1:1
147
223
109
276
529
249
255.5
135.1
0.529
1:10
90
52
83
68
52
55
66.7
15.2
0.227
1:100
8
3
0
0
0
0
1.8
3.0
1.619
FCG Research Institute,Inc.
1:1000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
1:10000
0
0
6
10
1
7
4
3.9
0.968
31
Table 49. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of microbial suspension(E.coli ) by LuciPac Pen.
CFU/assay
Sample
Blank
10 7
10 6
10 5
10 4
10 3
10 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
21
20
21
21
19
23
20.8
1.2
0.058
24144
15690
18435
13905
12435
16053
16777
3782.2
0.225
1303
1056
1600
1972
1133
1204
1378
316.7
0.230
167
171
208
162
170
145
170.5
18.9
0.111
35
45
40
43
38
33
39
4.2
0.108
32
23
16
20
12
25
21.3
6.4
0.301
21
15
19
23
19
21
19.7
2.5
0.127
Table 50. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of microbial suspension(E.coli ) by Clean Trace.
CFU/assay
Sample
Blank
10 7
10 6
10 5
10 4
10 3
10 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
13
8
9
9
10
6
9.2
2.1
0.231
50247
159753
174204
114726
177388
106152
130411.7
45178.2
0.346
11273
14240
13005
15156
16723
13628
14004.2
1701.6
0.122
1941
1575
1575
1424
1763
1283
1593.5
214.2
0.134
97
75
74
60
74
83
77.2
11.2
0.145
29
16
24
26
19
35
24.8
6.3
0.252
15
11
13
14
12
15
13.3
1.5
0.112
Table 51. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of microbial suspension(E.coli ) by UltraSnap.
CFU/assay
Sample
Blank
10 7
10 6
10 5
10 4
10 3
10 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
2115
879
1733
841
1172
1166
1317.7
460.5
0.349
133
224
112
83
129
164
140.8
44.4
0.315
16
11
12
11
11
7
11.3
2.6
0.232
1
1
1
0
0
0
0.5
0.5
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
2.236
FCG Research Institute,Inc.
32
Table 52. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of microbial suspension(E.coli ) by SuperSnap.
CFU/assay
Sample
Blank
10 7
10 6
10 5
10 4
10 3
10 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
8275
8199
8017
8295
8279
7991
8176
125.6
0.015
5555
5805
6151
5335
5129
4243
5369.7
600.4
0.112
411
332
353
356
474
346
378.7
49.2
0.130
16
10
24
15
24
19
18
5
0.278
2
3
3
2
2
2
2.3
0.5
0.202
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
Table 53. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of microbial suspension(E.coli ) by AccuPoint.
CFU/assay
Sample
Blank
10 7
10 6
10 5
10 4
10 3
10 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
0
0
0
4
6
0
1.7
2.4
1.456
591
8613
5029
6740
3046
4503
4753.7
2556.8
0.538
570
1514
277
229
358
598
591
435.2
0.736
17
43
0
72
14
37
30.5
23.5
0.770
0
0
0
4
1
0
0.8
1.5
1.755
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
FCG Research Institute,Inc.
33
Table 54. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of microbial suspension(S.aureus) by LuciPac Pen.
CFU/assay
Sample
Blank
10 7
10 6
10 5
10 4
10 3
10 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
21
20
21
21
19
23
20.8
1.2
0.058
34407
43752
40609
36262
42001
35774
38800.8
3486.6
0.090
3682
4301
4238
3806
3846
3827
3950
232.6
0.059
432
422
512
399
457
468
448.3
36.3
0.081
66
69
62
70
61
66
65.7
3.3
0.050
29
32
26
26
27
28
28
2.1
0.074
22
21
23
13
21
26
21
4
0.188
Table 55. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of microbial suspension(S.aureus) by Clean Trace.
CFU/assay
Sample
Blank
10 7
10 6
10 5
10 4
10 3
10 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
13
8
9
9
10
6
9.2
2.1
0.231
68478
47119
59673
59766
66816
59427
60213.2
6885.6
0.114
7474
6518
6073
5774
4316
5820
5995.8
945.7
0.158
598
871
449
887
814
690
718.2
157.4
0.219
90
123
121
100
106
103
107.2
11.6
0.108
21
15
17
17
19
22
18.5
2.4
0.131
15
11
10
8
12
10
11
2.2
0.196
Table 56. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of microbial suspension(S.aureus) by UltraSnap.
CFU/assay
Sample
Blank
10 7
10 6
10 5
10 4
10 3
10 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
4836
3137
3453
2189
2543
3340
3249.7
837.0
0.258
449
464
485
327
486
427
439.7
54.4
0.124
52
55
58
53
53
60
55.2
2.9
0.053
7
8
7
7
6
6
6.8
0.7
0.101
0
0
1
1
0
0
0.3
0.5
1.414
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
FCG Research Institute,Inc.
34
Table 57. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of microbial suspension(S.aureus) by SuperSnap.
CFU/assay
Sample
Blank
10 7
10 6
10 5
10 4
10 3
10 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
6425
5931
5967
5568
5757
5435
5847.2
319.2
0.055
743
513
333
753
369
611
553.7
165
0.298
98
84
72
108
52
103
86.2
19.5
0.226
14
24
21
10
12
11
15.3
5.3
0.344
2
2
2
4
5
2
2.8
1.2
0.428
0
0
0
1
8
1
1.7
2.9
1.720
Table 58. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of microbial suspension(S.aureus) by AccuPoint.
CFU/assay
Sample
Blank
10 7
10 6
10 5
10 4
10 3
10 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
0
0
0
4
6
0
1.7
2.4
1.456
10339
22420
7333
36348
36491
11625
20759.3
12010.7
0.579
1932
3117
2934
2256
2412
2534
2530.8
398.8
0.158
239
440
480
323
190
203
312.5
113.2
0.362
28
11
20
29
19
9
19.3
7.6
0.392
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
FCG Research Institute,Inc.
35
Table 59. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of microbial suspension(S. cereviciae) by LuciPac Pen.
CFU/assay
Sample
Blank
10 6
10 5
10 4
10 3
10 2
10 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
21
20
21
21
19
23
20.8
1.2
0.058
279524
320259
341267
294802
320949
316472
312212.2
19895.7
0.064
26755
28920
42309
35169
36706
37970
34638.2
5312.6
0.153
2223
3510
2701
2638
3368
3051
2915.2
443.3
0.152
309
325
355
439
382
369
363.2
42
0.116
56
54
53
49
46
40
49.7
5.4
0.109
23
24
26
25
27
22
24.5
1.7
0.070
Table 60. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of microbial suspension(S. cereviciae) by Clean Trace.
CFU/assay
Sample
Blank
10 6
10 5
10 4
10 3
10 2
10 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
13
8
9
9
10
6
9.2
2.1
0.231
190244
78889
146199
201189
294133
66735
162898.2
77481.5
0.476
36820
27518
22936
18400
33704
35246
29104
6752.2
0.232
2561
2715
2387
5008
3962
3116
3291.5
922.9
0.280
221
336
636
307
375
221
349.3
140.1
0.401
58
38
40
55
29
34
42.3
10.6
0.251
10
13
11
16
16
12
13
2.3
0.178
Table 61. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of microbial suspension(S. cereviciae) by UltraSnap.
CFU/assay
Sample
Blank
10 6
10 5
10 4
10 3
10 2
10 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
6105
5438
6811
5890
6217
6066
6087.8
408.6
0.067
2038
2841
1536
3638
2706
3844
2767.2
813.9
0.294
466
470
179
522
224
268
354.8
134.9
0.380
16
15
25
23
26
51
26
11.9
0.459
1
2
3
2
3
0
1.8
1.1
0.582
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
FCG Research Institute,Inc.
36
Table 62. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of microbial suspension(S. cereviciae) by SuperSnap.
CFU/assay
Sample
Blank
10 6
10 5
10 4
10 3
10 2
10 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
7982
9102
8907
8114
9211
9317
8772.2
528.2
0.060
8103
8082
8056
8065
8368
8176
8141.7
108.5
0.013
5158
4942
3882
3134
2447
4652
4035.8
985
0.244
841
245
412
278
277
515
428
207
0.484
50
47
36
22
45
16
36
12.9
0.358
4
3
5
2
5
5
4
1.2
0.289
Table 63. Amount of Luminescence(RLU) of microbial suspension(S. cereviciae) by AccuPoint.
CFU/assay
Sample
Blank
10 6
10 5
10 4
10 3
10 2
10 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
SD
CV value
0
0
0
4
6
0
1.7
2.4
1.456
87153
99999
99999
0*
99999
99999
97429.8
5138.4
0.053
27877
25702
62161
15259
38270
46741
36001.7
15314.2
0.425
6798
3579
5975
7132
4251
4887
5437
1302.3
0.240
975
304
707
370
675
341
562
243.8
0.434
62
14
59
46
54
26
43.5
17.7
0.406
0
0
0
0
3
0
0.5
1.1
2.236
*
Not included in the calculation
FCG Research Institute,Inc.
37