Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T22:29:27.859Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Clinical Effectiveness of Low-Temperature Sterilization Technologies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

William A. Rutala  and
David J. Weber
William A. Rutala*
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Disease, University of North Carolina School of Medicine The Department of Hospital Epidemiology, UNC Hospitals, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
David J. Weber
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Disease, University of North Carolina School of Medicine The Department of Hospital Epidemiology, UNC Hospitals, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
*
547 Burnett-Womack Bldg, CB #7030, UNC at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7030
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The elimination of chlorofluorocarbons by the Clean Air Act has led to the development of alternative technologies for low-temperature sterilization in the healthcare setting, including 100% ethylene oxide, ethylene oxide with other stabilizing gases, immersion in peracetic acid, and gas plasmas. The ideal sterilant does not exist, and infection control professionals should understand the advantages and disadvantages of these processes. However, when combined with adherence to standard cleaning protocols, the available data suggest that the currently available Food and Drug Administration-cleared low-temperature sterilization technologies can inactivate a clinically relevant inoculum of highly resistant organisms

Type
Disinfection and Sterilization
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 19 , Issue 10 , October 1998 , pp. 798 - 804
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1998

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. Environmental Protection Agency. Notice of proposed rule making on Protection of Stratospheric Ozone (40 CFR part 82). Federal Register May 12, 1993;58:28093–28192.Google Scholar
2. Weber, DJ, Rutala, WA. Occupational risks associated with the use of selected disinfectants and sterilants. In: Rutala, WA, ed. Disinfection, Sterilization and Antisepsis in Health Care. Champlain, NY: Polyscience Publications; 1998;211–226.Google Scholar
3. Schneider, PM. Low-temperature sterilization alternatives in the 1990s. Tappi Journal 1994;77:115–119.Google Scholar
4. Ethylene oxide sterilization: how hospitals can adapt to the changes. Health Devices 1994;23:485–492. Guidance article.Google Scholar
5. Graham, GS, Riley, R. Sterilization manufacturers: interactions with regulatory agencies. In: Rutala, WA, ed. Disinfection, Sterilization, and Antisepsis in Healthcare. Champlain, NY: Polyscience Publications; 1998;41–48.Google Scholar
6. Rutala, WA, Weber, DJ. Low-temperature sterilization technologies: do we need to redefine “sterilization”? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1995;17:87–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Gross, D. Ethylene oxide sterilization and alternative methods. Surgical Services Management 1995;1:16–17.Google Scholar
8. Rutala, WA, APIC Guidelines Committee. APIC guideline for selection and use of disinfectants. Am J Infect Control 1996;24:313–342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Schneider, PM. Emerging low temperature sterilization technologies (non-FDA approved). In: Rutala, WA, ed. Disinfection, Sterilization and Antisepsis in Health Care. Champlain, NY: Polyscience Publications; 1998;79–92.Google Scholar
10. Borneff-Lipp, M, Okpara, J, Bodendorf, M, Sonntag, HG. Validation of low-temperature-plasma (LPT) sterilization systems: comparison of two technical versions, the Sterrad 100, 1.8, and the 100S. Hygiene und Mikrobiologie 1997;3:21–28.Google Scholar
11. Rutala, WA, Gergen, MF, Weber, DJ. Comparative evaluation of the sporicidal activity of new low temperature sterilization technologies: 10/90 ethylene oxide, two plasma sterilization systems, and liquid peracetic acid. Am J Infect Control 1998. In press.Google Scholar
12. Food and Drug Administration, Division of General and Restorative Devices. Guidance on Premarket Notification [510(k)] Submissions for Sterilizers Intended for Use in Health Care Facilities. March 1993.Google Scholar
13. Alfa, MJ. Plasma-based sterilization: the challenge of narrow lumens. Infect Control Sterilization Tech 1996;2:19–24.Google Scholar
14. Alfa, MJ. Flexible endoscope reprocessing. Infect Control Sterilization Tech 1997;3:26–36.Google Scholar
15. Alfa, MJ, DeGagne, P, Olson, N, Puchalski, T. Comparison of ion plasma, vaporized hydrogen peroxide and 100% ethylene oxide sterilizers to the 12/88 ethylene oxide gas sterilizer. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996;17:92–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. 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
17. Borneff, M, Ruppert, J, Okpara, J, Bach, A, Mannschott, P, Amreihn, R, Sonntag, HG. Efficacy testing of low-temperature plasma sterilization (LTP) with test object models simulating practice conditions. Zentr Steril 1995;3:361–371.Google Scholar
18. Bradley, CR, Babb, JR, Ayliffe, AJ. Evaluation of the Steris System 1 per-acetic acid endoscope processor. J Hosp Infect 1995;29:143–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Bryce, EA, Chia, E, Logelin, G, Smith, JA. An evaluation of the AbTox plazlyte sterilization system. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1997;18:646–653.Google Scholar
20. Holler, C, Martiny, H, Christiansen, B, Ruden, H, Gundermann, K. The efficacy of low temperature plasma (LTP) sterilization, a new sterilization technique. Zbl Hyg 1993;194:380–391.Google Scholar
21. Jacobs, P. Cleaning: principles and benefits. In: Rutala, WA, ed. Disinfection, Sterilization, and Antisepsis in Healthcare. Champlain, NY: Polyscience Publications; 1998:165–182.Google Scholar
22. Abbott, CF, Cockton, J, Jones, W. Resistance of crystalline substances to gas sterilization. J Pharm Pharmacol 1956;8:709–721.Google Scholar
23. Royce, A, Bowler, C. Ethylene oxide sterilisation-some experiences and some practical limitations. J Pharm Pharmacol 1961;13:87t–94t.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Doyle, JE, Ernst, RR. Resistance of Bacillus subtilis var. niger spores occluded in water-insoluble crystals to three sterilization agents. Appl Microbiol 1967;15:726–730.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Nystrom, B. Disinfection of surgical instruments. J Hosp Infect 1981;2:363–368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. Chan-Myers, H, McAlister, D, Antonoplos, P. Natural bioburden levels detected on rigid lumened medical devices before and after cleaning. Am J Infect Control 1997;25:471–476.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27. 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