Validation of constitutively expressed bioluminescent Pseudomonas aeruginosa as a rapid microbiological quantification tool

Effectiveness of current disinfection procedures against biofilm on contaminated GI endoscopes

“…bolletii (3/9), clearly shows the low sensitivity of the test for detecting low levels of bacteria. In fact, our results appear to be in agreement with previous investigations reporting variable lower ATP detection limits, such as 10 2 CFU/mL for S. aureus 32 , 10 3 CFU/mL for P. aeruginosa 33 , and 10 4 CFU/mL for mycobacteria 34 .…”

“…In regard to ATP levels, post-cleaning were comparable with pre-contamination results. After contamination, ATP levels reached a median of 8434 (range: 1385-727668) RLUs, whereas after cleaning levels decreased to 35 (range: 11-220) RLUs, comparable with the pre-contamination levels of 28 (21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40) RLUs. After cleaning, only one catheter displayed more than 100 RLUs (220 RLUs,…”

Attomol‐level ATP bioluminometer for detecting single bacterium

“…To detect microorganisms in target samples, the samples are often concentrated on membrane filters by removing bulk solution containing microorganisms . Small samples are often diluted and prepared after picking up cut out from a solid sample or from samples that include additives . The automated ATP bioluminometer described in this article has ultra‐high sensitivity and will be a powerful tool for measuring ATP samples eluted from membrane filters or diluted samples.…”

“…In the case of bulk target samples, these are often filtered to concentrate the microorganisms in the samples. ATP samples are obtained by mixing the suspended samples with microliter amounts of extraction reagents or applying the reagents to the filters . An automated, highly sensitive ATP bioluminometer is useful for removing ATP contamination caused by handling the reagents and improving the ATP detection limit, and is necessary for measuring attomol‐level ATP in microliter order samples.…”

Identificação rápida de contaminantes microbianos em produtos farmacêuticos

“…Apesar das vantagens dos métodos microbiológicos rápidos (MMRs), ainda existem algumas barreiras, principalmente devido a questões regulatórias. (Bugno, et al, 2015) (Ferreira, et al, 2014) (Parveen, et al, 2011) (Shah & Naseby, 2015) (Verdonk, et al, 2010) (Lourenço, et al, 2015) (Bugno, et al, 2017); 2) métodos baseados na viabilidade, tais como citometria de fluxo e detecção de ATP (Taguri, et al, 2011) (Ugarova, et al, 2016); 3) métodos baseados na análise fenotípica, tais como técnicas imuno-fluorescência, espectrometria infravermelha (FTIR), espectroscopia de massa (MALDI-TOF), e análise de ácidos graxos perfil por cromatografia em fase gasosa (CG) (Davis & Mauer, 2010) (Filip, et al, 2004) (Fischer, et al, 2006) (Helm & Naumann, 1995) (Kuligowski, et al, 2012) ) (Pacheco & Pinto, 2010) (Song, et al, 2016) (Tidwell, et al, 2015) (Tong, et al, 2010) (Wu, et al, 2013); e 4) métodos baseados na análise do genótipo, tais como técnicas do PCR e identificação da impressão digital (Kane, et al, 2009) (Maurischat, et al, 2015).…”