Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to site content
CDC Home

Volume 7, Number 2—April 2001
4th Decennial International Conference on Nosocomial and Healthcare-Associated Infections

State of the Art

New Disinfection and Sterilization Methods

William A. RutalaComments to Author  and David J. Weber
Author affiliations: University of North Carolina (UNC) Health Care System; UNC School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA

Main Article

Table 7

Comparison of new and standard disinfection and sterilization technologies

Comparison of new with standard technology
New Standard Advantages Disadvantages Future needs
OPA Glutaraldehyde -Shorter process time (12 vs 45 min)
-No activation
-Not a known irritant to eyes and nasal passages
-No vapor ceiling limit
-Weak odor -Stains protein gray
-Higher cost -Additional studies of antimicrobial efficacy
-Study of effectiveness in actual clinical use
-Cost-effectiveness study
-Verification of more cycles per solution than glutaraldehyde
Surfacine Disinfectants
(phenolics quaternary ammonium);
(alcohol, iodophor, chlorhexidine gluconate) -Antimicrobial persistence (>13 days)
-May be used on animate and inanimate surfaces
-Broad antimicrobial spectrum
-Transfers active agent (silver) to microbes on demand without elution
-Resistant to forming biofilm
-No toxicity to mammalian cells -Cost? -Assess microbicidal activity against broad spectrum of pathogens
-Demonstration of efficacy to reduce nosocomial infections
-Human safety and toxicity data for use as an antiseptic
-Demonstrate antimicrobial activity in presence of organic matter
Superoxidized water High- or low-level disinfectants; antiseptics -Basic materials (saline and electricity) inexpensive
-End product not damaging to environment
-Nontoxic to biological tissues -Production equipment expensive due to monitoring
-Endoscope compatibility unknown
-Decreased efficacy in presence of organic matter
-Limited-use life (must be freshly generated) -Evaluation of endoscope compatibility
-Cost-effectiveness study
Endoclens None -Device automatically cleans and sterilizes
-Rapid cycle time (<30 min)
-Tests endoscope for channel blockage and leaks
-Advantages of automated process (e.g., consistent exposure to sterilant, filtered water rinse, operator convenience) -Cost?
-Used for immersible instruments only
-Point-of-use system, no long-term storage -Cost-effectiveness study
-Study of effectiveness in actual clinical use
-Assessment of microbicidal activity
EO rapid readout 48-hr spore readout biological indicator -Rapid (4-hr), reliable assessment of sterilization efficacy
-Prevents recall of released sterilization loads -Cost?
-Not tested with EO and CO2 mixtures -Cost-effectiveness study
-Validation of claimed 100% sensitivity
Plasma sterilizer Hydrogen peroxide gas plasma sterilizer -Use of two hydrogen peroxide diffusion-plasma stage cycles is a more effective sterilization process
-Reduced cycle time (45 min)
-Various sized units available
-Leaves no toxic residues -Cost?
-Endoscopes with lengths >40 cm or a diameter of <3 mm cannot be processed -Cost effectiveness study
-Study of effectiveness in actual clinical use

Main Article

Top of Page The U.S. Government's Official Web PortalDepartment of Health and Human Services
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention   1600 Clifton Rd. Atlanta, GA 30333, USA
800-CDC-INFO (800-232-4636) TTY: (888) 232-6348 - Contact CDC–INFO