scholarly journals Reply to “Comparative evaluation of the microbicidal activity of low-temperature sterilization technologies to steam sterilization”

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (8) ◽  
pp. 999-1000
Author(s):  
Randal Eveland
Keyword(s):  
Low Temperature ◽  
Comparative Evaluation ◽  
Steam Sterilization ◽  
Microbicidal Activity

Comparative evaluation of the microbicidal activity of low-temperature sterilization technologies to steam sterilization

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 391-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
William A. Rutala ◽  
Maria F. Gergen ◽  
Emily E. Sickbert-Bennett ◽  
David J. Weber
Keyword(s):  
Hydrogen Peroxide ◽  
Low Temperature ◽  
Failure Rate ◽  
Geobacillus Stearothermophilus ◽  
Steam Sterilization ◽  
Microbicidal Activity ◽  
Gas Plasma ◽  
Test Organisms ◽  
Margin Of Safety ◽  
Vancomycin Resistant

AbstractObjective:To compare the microbicidal activity of low-temperature sterilization technologies (vaporized hydrogen peroxide [VHP], ethylene oxide [ETO], and hydrogen peroxide gas plasma [HPGP]) to steam sterilization in the presence of salt and serum to simulate inadequate precleaning.Methods:Test carriers were inoculated with Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus, Mycobacterium terrae, Bacillus atrophaeus spores, Geobacillus stearothermophilus spores, or Clostridiodes difficile spores in the presence of salt and serum and then subjected to 4 sterilization technologies: steam, ETO, VHP and HPGP.Results:Steam, ETO, and HPGP sterilization techniques were capable of inactivating the test organisms on stainless steel carriers with a failure rate of 0% (0 of 220), 1.9% (6 of 310), and 1.9% (5 of 270), respectively. The failure rate for VHP was 76.3% (206 of 270).Conclusion:Steam sterilization is the most effective and had the largest margin of safety, followed by ETO and HPGP, but VHP showed much less efficacy.

scholarly journals Comparative Evaluation of the Microbicidal Activity of Low-Temperature Sterilization Technologies to Steam Sterilization

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s176-s177
Author(s):  
William Rutala ◽  
Maria Gergen ◽  
Emily Sickbert-Bennett ◽  
David Jay Weber
Keyword(s):  
Hydrogen Peroxide ◽  
Low Temperature ◽  
Failure Rate ◽  
Steam Sterilization ◽  
Healthcare Facilities ◽  
Microbicidal Activity ◽  
Gas Plasma ◽  
Surgical Devices ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Test Organisms

Background: Most medical and surgical devices used in healthcare facilities are made of materials that are sterilized by heat (ie, heat stable), primarily steam sterilization. Low-temperature sterilization methods developed for heat and moisture sensitive devices include ethylene oxide gas (ETO), hydrogen peroxide gas plasma (HPGP), vaporized hydrogen peroxide (VHP), and hydrogen peroxide plus ozone. This study is the first to evaluate the microbicidal activity of the FDA-cleared VHP sterilizer and other methods (Table 1) in the presence of salt and serum (10% FCS). Methods: Brushed stainless steel discs (test carriers) were inoculated with test microbes (Table 1) and subjected to 4 sterilization methods: steam, ETO, VHP and HPGP. Results: Steam sterilization killed all 5 vegetative and 3 spore-forming test organisms in the presence of salt and serum (Table 1). Similarly, the ETO and the HPGP sterilizers inactivated the test organisms with a failure rate of 1.9% for each (ie, 6 of 310 for ETO and 5 of 270 for HPGP). Although steam had no failures compared to both ETO and HPGP, which demonstrated some failures for vegetative bacteria, there was no significant difference comparing the failure rate of steam to either ETO (P > .05) or HPGP (P > .05). However, the VHP system tested failed to inactivate all the test organisms in 76.3% of the tests (206 of 270; P < .00001) (Table 1). Conclusions: This investigation demonstrated that steam sterilization was the most effective method, followed by ETO and HPGP and, lastly, VHP.Funding: NoneDisclosures: Dr. Rutala was a consultant to ASP (Advanced Sterilization Products)

Comparative evaluation of tar steam reforming over graphitic carbon supported Ni and Co catalysts at low temperature

2021 ◽  
Vol 244 ◽  
pp. 114454
Author(s):  
Wen Tang ◽  
Jing-Pei Cao ◽  
Zhi-Hao Wang ◽  
Zi-Meng He ◽  
Tian-Long Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Temperature ◽  
Steam Reforming ◽  
Comparative Evaluation ◽  
Graphitic Carbon ◽  
Co Catalysts ◽  
Supported Ni
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document