A Head-to-Head Comparison of Hydrogen Peroxide Vapor and Aerosol Room Decontamination Systems.
(2011) In Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 32(9). p.831-836- Abstract
- 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... (More)
- 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. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/2151248
- author
- Holmdahl, Torsten LU ; Lanbeck, Peter LU ; Wullt, Marlene LU and Walder, Mats
- organization
- publishing date
- 2011
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- in
- Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology
- volume
- 32
- issue
- 9
- pages
- 831 - 836
- publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- external identifiers
-
- wos:000299083000001
- pmid:21828962
- scopus:80051707002
- pmid:21828962
- ISSN
- 0899-823X
- DOI
- 10.1086/661104
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- f7869a26-abef-4681-8a21-2bb695cc0f0d (old id 2151248)
- alternative location
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21828962?dopt=Abstract
- date added to LUP
- 2016-04-04 09:21:12
- date last changed
- 2022-04-15 22:59:45
@article{f7869a26-abef-4681-8a21-2bb695cc0f0d, abstract = {{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.}}, author = {{Holmdahl, Torsten and Lanbeck, Peter and Wullt, Marlene and Walder, Mats}}, issn = {{0899-823X}}, language = {{eng}}, number = {{9}}, pages = {{831--836}}, publisher = {{University of Chicago Press}}, series = {{Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology}}, title = {{A Head-to-Head Comparison of Hydrogen Peroxide Vapor and Aerosol Room Decontamination Systems.}}, url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/661104}}, doi = {{10.1086/661104}}, volume = {{32}}, year = {{2011}}, }