Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:48:53.696Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparative Study of Ethylene Oxide Gas, Hydrogen Peroxide Gas Plasma, and Low-Temperature Steam Formaldehyde Sterilization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

Keiji Kanemitsu ,
Takayuki Imasaka ,
Shiho Ishikawa ,
Hiroyuki Kunishima ,
Hideo Harigae ,
Kumi Ueno ,
Hiromu Takemura ,
Yoshihiro Hirayama  and
Mitsuo Kaku
Keiji Kanemitsu*
Affiliation:
Department of Molecular Diagnostics, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan
Takayuki Imasaka
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Systems, Central Uni Co. Ltd., Onojo, Fukuoka, Japan
Shiho Ishikawa
Affiliation:
Department of Molecular Diagnostics, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan
Hiroyuki Kunishima
Affiliation:
Department of Molecular Diagnostics, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan
Hideo Harigae
Affiliation:
Department of Molecular Diagnostics, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan
Kumi Ueno
Affiliation:
Department of Molecular Diagnostics, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan
Hiromu Takemura
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, Kawasaki, Kanagawa, Japan
Yoshihiro Hirayama
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Systems, Central Uni Co. Ltd., Onojo, Fukuoka, Japan
Mitsuo Kaku
Affiliation:
Department of Molecular Diagnostics, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan
*
Department of Molecular Diagnostics, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-1 Seiryo-machi Aobaku Sendai, Miyagi 980-8574, Japan[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the efficacies of ethylene oxide gas (EOG), hydrogen peroxide gas plasma (PLASMA), and low-temperature steam formaldehyde (LTSF) sterilization methods.

Methods:

The efficacies of EOG, PLASMA, and LTSF sterilization were tested using metal and plastic plates, common medical instruments, and three process challenge devices with narrow lumens. All items were contaminated with Bacillus stearothermophilus spores or used a standard biological indicator.

Results:

EOG and LTSF demonstrated effective killing of B. stearothermophilus spores, with or without serum, on plates, on instruments, and in process challenge devices. PLASMA failed to adequately sterilize materials on multiple trials in several experiments, including two of three plates, two of three instruments, and all process challenge devices.

Conclusions:

Our results suggest that PLASMA sterilization may be unsuccessful under certain conditions, particularly when used for items with complex shapes and narrow lumens. Alternatively, LTSF sterilization demonstrates excellent efficacy and is comparable to EOG sterilization. LTSF could potentially act as a substitute if EOG becomes unavailable due to environmental concerns.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 26 , Issue 5 , May 2005 , pp. 486 - 489
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2005

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.Oie, S. Guidelines for disinfection and sterilization [in Japanese]. Nippon Rinsho 2002;60:2121–2125.Google ScholarPubMed
2.Gaspar, MC, Pelaez, B, Fernandez, C, Fereres, J. Microbiological efficacy of Sterrad 100S and LTSF sterilization systems compared with ethylene oxide. Central Service 2002;10:91–99.Google Scholar
3.Kawaguchi, K, Yamaki, H, Okuwaki, J. Cleaning and disinfection of fiberoptic endoscope [in Japanese]. Gastroenterological Endoscopy 1995;37:24–31.Google Scholar
4.Kubota, Y, Yasuda, A, Katakami, T, et al. Cleaning and disinfection of colo-noscope [in Japanese]. Progress of Digestive Endoscopy 1996;49:67–71.Google Scholar
5.Sato, S, Morishita, K, Sasa, H, Kinoshita, C, Oida, M. Experimental and clinical studies on the cleaning and disinfection of endoscopes [in Japanese]. Gastroenterological Endoscopy 1998;40:543–549.Google Scholar
6.Jacobs, P, Kowatsch, R. Sterrad sterilization system: a new technology for instrument sterilization. Endoscopic Surgery and Allied Technologies 1993;1:57–58.Google Scholar
7.Kyi, MS, Holton, J, Ridgway, GL. Assessment of the efficacy of a low temperature hydrogen peroxide gas plasma sterilization system. J Hosp Infect 1995;31:275–284.Google Scholar
8.Ayliffe, G. Decontamination of minimally invasive surgical endoscopes and accessories. J Hosp Infect 2000;45:263–277.Google Scholar
9.Kanemitsu, K, Kunishima, H, Imasaka, T, et al. Evaluation of a low-temperature steam and formaldehyde sterilizer. J Hosp Infect 2003;55:47–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Adler, S, Scherrer, M, Daschner, FD. Costs of low-temperature plasma sterilization compared with other sterilization methods. J Hosp Infect 1998;40:125–134.Google Scholar
11.Nakata, S, Umeshita, K, Ueyama, H, et al. Aeration time following ethylene oxide sterilization for reusable rigid sterilization containers: concentration of gaseous ethylene oxide in containers. Biomed Instrum Technol 2000;34:121–124.Google ScholarPubMed
12.International Agency for Research on Cancer. Ethylene oxide: IARC monographs programme on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. IARC Monographs 1994;60:73.Google Scholar
13.International Agency for Research on Cancer. Hydrogen peroxide: IARC monographs programme on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. IARC Monographs 1999;71:671.Google Scholar
14.International Agency for Research on Cancer. Formaldehyde: IARC monographs programme on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. IARC Monographs 1995:62:217.Google Scholar
15.Martin, MA, Reichelderfer, M. APIC guideline for infection prevention and control in flexible endoscopy. Am J Infect Control 1994;22:19–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Axon, A, Jung, M, Kruse, A, et al. Guidelines on cleaning and disinfection in GI endoscopy: update 1999. Endoscopy 2000;32:77–80.Google Scholar
17.DiMarino, AJ Jr, Goge, T, Leung, J, et al. Reprocessing of flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes. Gastrointest Endosc 1996;43:540–546.Google Scholar
18.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nosocomial infection and pseudoinfection from contaminated endoscopes and bronchoscopes: Wisconsin and Missouri. MMWR 1991;40:675–678.Google Scholar
19.Spach, DH, Silverstein, FE, Stamm, WE. Transmission of infection by gastrointestinal endoscopy. Ann Intern Med 1993;118:117–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Bronchoscopy-related infections and pseudoinfections: New York, 1996 and 1998. MMWR 1999;48:557–560.Google Scholar