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

作者：Holmdahl T; Lanbeck P; Wullt M; Walder M H^*

来源：Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, 2011, 32(9): 831-836.

DOI：10.1086/661104

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. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32(9):831-836

• 出版日期2011-9