OBJECTIVE: New technologies have emerged in recent years for the disinfection of hospital rooms and equipment that may not be disinfected adequately using conventional methods. There are several hydrogen peroxide-based area decontamination technologies on the market, but no head-to-head studies have been performed. DESIGN: We conducted a head-to-head in vitro comparison of a hydrogen peroxide vapor (HPV) system (Bioquell) and an aerosolized hydrogen peroxide (aHP) system (Sterinis). SETTING: The tests were conducted in a purpose-built 136-m(3) test room. METHODS: One HPV generator and 2 aHP machines were used, following recommendations of the manufacturers. Three repeated tests were performed for each system. The microbiological efficacy of the 2 systems was tested using 6-log Tyvek-pouched Geobacillus stearothermophilus biological indicators (BIs). The indicators were placed at 20 locations in the first test and 14 locations in the subsequent 2 tests for each system. RESULTS: All BIs were inactivated for the 3 HPV tests, compared with only 10% in the first aHP test and 79% in the other 2 aHP tests. The peak hydrogen peroxide concentration was 338 ppm for HPV and 160 ppm for aHP. The total cycle time (including aeration) was 3 and 3.5 hours for the 3 HPV tests and the 3 aHP tests, respectively. Monitoring around the perimeter of the enclosure with a handheld sensor during tests of both systems did not identify leakage. CONCLUSION: One HPV generator was more effective than 2 aHP machines for the inactivation of G. stearothermophilus BIs, and cycle times were faster for the HPV system.
OBJECTIVE: New technologies have emerged in recent years for the disinfection of hospital rooms and equipment that may not be disinfected adequately using conventional methods. There are several hydrogen peroxide-based area decontamination technologies on the market, but no head-to-head studies have been performed. DESIGN: We conducted a head-to-head in vitro comparison of a hydrogen peroxide vapor (HPV) system (Bioquell) and an aerosolized hydrogen peroxide (aHP) system (Sterinis). SETTING: The tests were conducted in a purpose-built 136-m(3) test room. METHODS: One HPV generator and 2 aHP machines were used, following recommendations of the manufacturers. Three repeated tests were performed for each system. The microbiological efficacy of the 2 systems was tested using 6-log Tyvek-pouched Geobacillus stearothermophilus biological indicators (BIs). The indicators were placed at 20 locations in the first test and 14 locations in the subsequent 2 tests for each system. RESULTS: All BIs were inactivated for the 3 HPV tests, compared with only 10% in the first aHP test and 79% in the other 2 aHP tests. The peak hydrogen peroxide concentration was 338 ppm for HPV and 160 ppm for aHP. The total cycle time (including aeration) was 3 and 3.5 hours for the 3 HPV tests and the 3 aHP tests, respectively. Monitoring around the perimeter of the enclosure with a handheld sensor during tests of both systems did not identify leakage. CONCLUSION: One HPV generator was more effective than 2 aHP machines for the inactivation of G. stearothermophilus BIs, and cycle times were faster for the HPV system.
Authors: Roy F Chemaly; Sarah Simmons; Charles Dale; Shashank S Ghantoji; Maria Rodriguez; Julie Gubb; Julie Stachowiak; Mark Stibich Journal: Ther Adv Infect Dis Date: 2014-06
Authors: Moi Lin Ling; Anucha Apisarnthanarak; Le Thi Anh Thu; Victoria Villanueva; Costy Pandjaitan; Mohamad Yasim Yusof Journal: Antimicrob Resist Infect Control Date: 2015-12-29 Impact factor: 4.887
Authors: David J Weber; William A Rutala; Deverick J Anderson; Luke F Chen; Emily E Sickbert-Bennett; John M Boyce Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2016-05-02 Impact factor: 2.918