Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T10:00:39.329Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of an Oil-Based Lubricant on the Effectiveness of the Sterilization Processes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

William A. Rutala ,
Maria F. Gergen  and
David J. Weber
William A. Rutala*
Affiliation:
Department of Hospital Epidemiology, University of North Carolina Health Care System, Chapel Hill, North Carolina Division of Infectious Diseases, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Maria F. Gergen
Affiliation:
Department of Hospital Epidemiology, University of North Carolina Health Care System, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
David J. Weber
Affiliation:
Department of Hospital Epidemiology, University of North Carolina Health Care System, Chapel Hill, North Carolina Division of Infectious Diseases, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
*
Division of Infectious Diseases, 130 Mason Farm Rd., Bioinformatics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7030 ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Surgical instruments, including hinged instruments, were inoculated with test microorganisms (ie, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, approximately 2 × 106 colony-forming units [cfu]; Pseudomonas aeruginosa, approximately 3 x 106 cfu; Escherichia coli, approximately 2 × 105 cfu; vancomycin-resistant enterococci, 1 × 105 cfu; Geobacillus stearothermophilus spores, 2 × 105 cfu or more; or Bacillus atrophaeus spores, 9 × 104 cfu or more), coated with an oil-based lubricant (hydraulic fluid), subjected to a sterilization process, and then samples from the instruments were cultured. We found that the oil-based lubricant did not alter the effectiveness of the sterilization process because high numbers of clinically relevant bacteria and standard test spores (which are relatively resistant to the sterilization process) were inactivated.

Type
Concise Communications
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , January 2008 , pp. 69 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Ambulatory and Inpatient Procedures in the United States, 1996. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 1998:1–39.Google Scholar
2.Rutala, WA, Weber, DJ, Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Guideline for disinfection and sterilization in healthcare facilities: recommendations of CDC. MMWR Recomm Rep In press.Google Scholar
3.Rose, L, Jensen, B, Peterson, A, Banerjee, SN, Arduino, MJ. Swab materials and Bacillus anthracis spore recovery from nonporous surfaces. Emerg Infect Dis 2004;10:1023–1029.Google Scholar
4.Koransky, JR, Allen, SD, Dowell, VR Jr.Use of ethanol for selective isolation of spore-forming microorganisms. Appi Environ Microbiol 1978;35:762–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Beloian, A. Disinfectants. In: Cunniff, P, ed. Official Methods of Analysis of the AOAC international. Vol. I. Gaithersburg, MD: AOAC International; 1999: section 6-1-6-18.Google Scholar
6.Rutala, WA, Gergen, MF, Weber, DJ. Comparative evaluation of the sporicidal activity of new low-temperature sterilization technologies: ethylene oxide, 2 plasma sterilization systems, and liquid peracetic acid. Am J Infect Control 1998;26:393–398.Google Scholar
7.American Society for Healthcare Central Service Professionals. Training Manual for Health Care Central Service Technicians. Chicago, IL: The Jossey-Bass/American Hospital Association Press Series; 2001Google Scholar
8.Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI). Comprehensive Guide to Steam Sterilization and Sterility Assurance in Health Care Facilities. Arlington, VA: Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation; 2006. ANSI/AAMI ST79.Google Scholar
9.Mizuba, S, Zimmer, DI, Woodrow, J, Halleck, FE. Methods for exposing and recovering spores applicable for use in sterilization studies of complex mechanical equipment. In: Developments in Industrial Microbiology. Vol. 20. Washington, DC: American Institute of Biological Sciences; 1979:437–447.Google Scholar
10.Favero, MS. Sterility assurance: concepts for patient safety. In: Rutala, WA, ed. Disinfection, Sterilization and Antisepsis: Printiples and Practices in Healthcare Facilities. Washington, DC: Association for Professional in Infection Control and Epidemiology; 2001:110–119.Google Scholar
11.Alfa, MJ, Olson, N, Degagne, P, Hizon, R. New low temperature sterilization technologies: microbicidal activity and clinical efficacy. In: Rutala, WA, ed. Disinfection, Sterilization, and Antisepsis in Healthcare. Champlain, NY: Polyscience Publications; 1998:67–78.Google Scholar
12.Rutala, WA, Gergen, MF, Jones, JF, Weber, DJ. Levels of microbial contamination on surgical instruments. Am J Infect Control 1998;26:143–145.Google Scholar
13.Nystrom, B. Disinfection of surgical instruments. J Hosp Infect 1981;2:363–368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed