Table 1.
Comparison of the effectiveness between enzyme cleaning technique and traditional CIP methods.
| Samples | Traditional CIP technique |
Enzyme cleaning technique |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| cATP(RLU) | SLYM-BARTs | cATP(RLU) | SLYM-BARTs | |
| Raw water | 160 | − | 120 | − |
| Sand-filtered water | 286 | + | 100 | − |
| Carbon-filtered water | 612 | ++ | 84 | − |
| RO water | 1246 | +++ | 90 | + |
| Deoxygenated water | 878 | +++ | 76 | − |
RLU value indicates the concentration of ATP (cATP) in the water sample. For enzyme cleaning, if the result is below 100 RLU, the cleaning effect is good, otherwise it should continue. “−” represents no slime-forming bacteria are detected in this water sample. “+” indicates slime-forming bacteria are occasionally found in this water sample. “++” indicates slime-forming bacteria obviously exist in this water sample. “+++” indicates many slime-forming bacteria can be detected easily in this water sample.