Advanced

A Head-to-Head Comparison of Hydrogen Peroxide Vapor and Aerosol Room Decontamination Systems.

Holmdahl, Torsten LU ; Lanbeck, Peter LU ; Wullt, Marlene LU and Walder, Mats (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:
author
organization
publishing date
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
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
2011-09-04 21:32:20
date last changed
2017-08-06 04:50:55
@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},
  volume       = {32},
  year         = {2011},
}