Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T16:15:18.699Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bacterial Killing Ability of 10% Ethylene Oxide Plus 90% Hydrochlorofluorocarbon Sterilizing Gas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Michelle J. Alfa ,
Pat DeGagne  and
Nancy Olson
Michelle J. Alfa*
Affiliation:
St Boniface General Hospital, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Pat DeGagne
Affiliation:
St Boniface General Hospital, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Nancy Olson
Affiliation:
St Boniface General Hospital, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
*
Microbiology, St Boniface General Hospital, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives:

To use a serum and salt challenge in narrow-lumen carriers to evaluate a 10% ethylene oxide plus 90% hydrochlorofluorocarbon (EO-HCFC) sterilant mixture in a retrofitted 12/88 sterilizer as an alternative to the banned chlorofluorocarbon-ethylene oxide (EO) sterilant mixture.

Design:

An EO-HCFC sterilizing gas mixture in a retrofitted 12/88 sterilizer was compared to 100% ethylene oxide (100% EO) sterilizing gas to determine its relative ability to kill seven different bacteria (Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterococcus faecalis, Bacillus subtilis spores, Bacillus stearothermophilus spores, Bacillus circulans spores, and Mycobacterium chelonei) in the presence or absence of a combined 10% serum and 0.65% salt challenge using both penicylinders (PC) and long narrowlumen (LU) carriers.

Results:

The EO-HCFC sterilant mixture (96% sterile carriers) was equivalent to the 100% EO sterilant (98% sterile carriers) for killing vegetative organisms, as well as spore suspensions, on the 27 PC and 27 LU carriers in the absence of serum and salt. In the presence of serum and salt, the EO-HCFC sterilant mixture was markedly better than the 100% EO sterilant at reducing the bacterial load on the 63 PC carriers (95% vs 62% sterile PC carriers, respectively), whereas both sterilizers were equivalent for the 63 LU carriers (49% vs 40% sterile LU carriers, respectively). Of the seven test organisms, E faecalis, B subtilis, B stearothermophilus, and B circulans were the most difficult to kill for both PC and LU carriers when serum and salt were present.

Conclusions:

The data presented in this report indicate that the EO-HCFC sterilant mixture is an effective alternative for gas sterilization. Indeed, the efficiency of bacterial killing for the EO-HCFC sterilant mixture was similar to that achieved by the 12/88 EO-CFC sterilant mixture.

Type
Originals Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 18 , Issue 9 , September 1997 , pp. 641 - 645
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1997

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. Spaulding, EH. Chemical disinfection of medical and surgical materials. In: Lawrence, CA, Block, SS, eds. Disinfection, Sterilizationi and Preservations Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger; 1968:517–531.Google Scholar
2. The Elimination of CFCs in Health Care Facilities. A Joint Project of the Canadian Hospital Association and Environment Canada. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: CHA Press; 1994:71–78.Google Scholar
3. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Sections 601607 of the Clean Air Act. Final Regulations to Accelerate the Phaseout of Ozone Depleting Substances. Office of Air and Radiation Stratospheric Protection Division (6205-J). 1996.Google Scholar
4. Alfa, MJ, DeGagne, P, Olson, P, 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
5. Conseil d'evaluation des technologies de la Sante du Quebec (CETS). Impact of the regulation respecting ozone-depleting substances on the reuse of single-use devices. Information Bulletin. CETS: Montreal, Quebec, Canada; 1995:vii–55.Google Scholar
6. Association for Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. Designing, Testing and Labeling Reusable Medical Devices for Reprocessing in Health Care Facilities: A Guide for Device Manufacturers. (Draft document.) Arlington, VA: AAMI TIR 1994, no. 12.Google Scholar
7. Martin, MA, Reichelderfer, M. APIC guideline for infection prevention and control in flexible endoscopy. Am J Infect Control 1994;22:19–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. American Society for Testing Materials. Method to Determine Efficacy of Cleaning Techniques for Reusable GI Endoscopes and Related Medical Instruments (simulated use test). Version 4.0. 03 19, 1996. (Draft F04.75).Google Scholar
9. Alfa, MJ. Applying CQI methods to processing difficult-to-steril-ize instruments. Infection Control and Sterilization Technology 1996;5:35–41.Google Scholar
10. McCraken, JE. Endoscopy reveals debris, fluid and damage in patient-ready GI endoscopes. Infection Control and Sterilization Technology 1995;1:32–43.Google Scholar
11. DesCouteaux, JG, Poulin, EC, Julaen, M, Guidoin, R. Residual organic debris on processed surgical instruments. AORN J 1995;62:23–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Rutala, WA, Weber, DJ. Use of chemical germicides in the United States; 1994 and beyond. In: Rutala, WA, ed. Chemical Germicides in Health Care, International Symposium 1994. Morin Heights, Quebec, Canada; Polyscience Publications Inc; 1995.Google Scholar