The Experts below are selected from a list of 276 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
T Puchalski - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
comparison of ion plasma vaporized hydrogen peroxide and 100 ethylene oxide sterilizers to the 12 88 ethylene oxide gas sterilizer
Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, 1996Co-Authors: Michelle J Alfa, Pat Degagne, Nancy Olson, T PuchalskiAbstract:OBJECTIVE: The performance of a standard gas sterilizer, which uses a mixture of 12% ethylene oxide (EtO) and 88% Chlorofluorocarbon as the sterilizing gas (12/88), was compared to selected gas, ion plasma, and vaporized hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) sterilizers that do not use Chlorofluorocarbons. The effect of serum and salt on sterilizer performance was evaluated. DESIGN: Test carriers (porcelain and stainless steel penicylinders, or 125-cm lengths of plastic tubing [internal diameter of 3.2 mm]) were inoculated with Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Mycobacterium chelonei, Bacillus stearothermophilus spores, Bacillus subtilis spores, and Bacillus circulans spores and then subjected to sterilization using 12/88, 100% EtO, ion plasma, or vaporized H2O2. The bacterial inoculum was prepared with and without 10% serum and 0.65% salt, and the residual bacterial load after sterilization as determined using viable counts. RESULTS: All of the sterilizers tested effected a six-log10 reduction of the bacterial inoculum on penicylinders, unless 10% serum and 0.65% salt were present, in which case the 100% EtO, vaporized H2O2, and ion plasma sterilizers were not as effective as the 12/88 sterilizer. None of the sterilizers could eradicate 10(6) CFU of all of the bacteria in 10% serum and 0.65% salt when inoculated inside a narrow lumen. CONCLUSIONS: The margin of safety for the 100% EtO, vaporized H2O2, and ion plasma sterilizers is less than that of the 12/88 sterilizer. The inability of all sterilizers, including the 12/88, to kill organisms in narrow lumens reliably when serum and salt were present raises concern about the current practice of gas sterilization of flexible endoscopes.
-
Comparison of ion plasma, vaporized hydrogen peroxide, and 100% ethylene oxide sterilizers to the 12/88 ethylene oxide gas sterilizer.
Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, 1996Co-Authors: Michelle J Alfa, Pat Degagne, Nancy Olson, T PuchalskiAbstract:OBJECTIVE: The performance of a standard gas sterilizer, which uses a mixture of 12% ethylene oxide (EtO) and 88% Chlorofluorocarbon as the sterilizing gas (12/88), was compared to selected gas, ion plasma, and vaporized hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) sterilizers that do not use Chlorofluorocarbons. The effect of serum and salt on sterilizer performance was evaluated. DESIGN: Test carriers (porcelain and stainless steel penicylinders, or 125-cm lengths of plastic tubing [internal diameter of 3.2 mm]) were inoculated with Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Mycobacterium chelonei, Bacillus stearothermophilus spores, Bacillus subtilis spores, and Bacillus circulans spores and then subjected to sterilization using 12/88, 100% EtO, ion plasma, or vaporized H2O2. The bacterial inoculum was prepared with and without 10% serum and 0.65% salt, and the residual bacterial load after sterilization as determined using viable counts. RESULTS: All of the sterilizers tested effected a six-log10 reduction of the bacterial inoculum on penicylinders, unless 10% serum and 0.65% salt were present, in which case the 100% EtO, vaporized H2O2, and ion plasma sterilizers were not as effective as the 12/88 sterilizer. None of the sterilizers could eradicate 10(6) CFU of all of the bacteria in 10% serum and 0.65% salt when inoculated inside a narrow lumen. CONCLUSIONS: The margin of safety for the 100% EtO, vaporized H2O2, and ion plasma sterilizers is less than that of the 12/88 sterilizer. The inability of all sterilizers, including the 12/88, to kill organisms in narrow lumens reliably when serum and salt were present raises concern about the current practice of gas sterilization of flexible endoscopes.
-
Comparison of ion plasma, vaporized hydrogen peroxide, and 100% ethylene oxide sterilizers to the 12/88 ethylene oxide gas sterilizer.
Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, 1996Co-Authors: Michelle J Alfa, Pat Degagne, Nancy Olson, T PuchalskiAbstract:OBJECTIVE: The performance of a standard gas sterilizer, which uses a mixture of 12% ethylene oxide (EtO) and 88% Chlorofluorocarbon as the sterilizing gas (12/88), was compared to selected gas, ion plasma, and vaporized hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) sterilizers that do not use Chlorofluorocarbons. The effect of serum and salt on sterilizer performance was evaluated. DESIGN: Test carriers (porcelain and stainless steel penicylinders, or 125-cm lengths of plastic tubing [internal diameter of 3.2 mm]) were inoculated with Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Mycobacterium chelonei, Bacillus stearothermophilus spores, Bacillus subtilis spores, and Bacillus circulans spores and then subjected to sterilization using 12/88, 100% EtO, ion plasma, or vaporized H2O2. The bacterial inoculum was prepared with and without 10% serum and 0.65% salt, and the residual bacterial load after sterilization as determined using viable counts. RESULTS: All of the sterilizers tested effected a six-log10 reduction of the bacterial inoculum on penicylinders, unless 10% serum and 0.65% salt were present, in which case the 100% EtO, vaporized H2O2, and ion plasma sterilizers were not as effective as the 12/88 sterilizer. None of the sterilizers could eradicate 10(6) CFU of all of the bacteria in 10% serum and 0.65% salt when inoculated inside a narrow lumen. CONCLUSIONS: The margin of safety for the 100% EtO, vaporized H2O2, and ion plasma sterilizers is less than that of the 12/88 sterilizer. The inability of all sterilizers, including the 12/88, to kill organisms in narrow lumens reliably when serum and salt were present raises concern about the current practice of gas sterilization of flexible endoscopes.
R.harris Cummings - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Pressurized metered dose inhalers: Chlorofluorocarbon to hydrofluoroalkane transition-valve performance.
The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology, 1999Co-Authors: R.harris CummingsAbstract:This article reviews the issues related to the performance of valves in metered dose inhalers with respect to Chlorofluorocarbon propellant replacement. Reformulation of existing Chlorofluorocarbon-based products with hydrofluoroalkane propellants has been a much more difficult task than initially anticipated, complicated by the need to concurrently develop better performing valves with cleaner extractive profiles. This paper will examine issues related to the reformulation and development of new valves and the tests and procedures used to evaluate valve performance. Evaluation of valve performance will consider the tests performed: mechanisms by which valves fail and analytic testing errors that can complicate the interpretation of results.
-
Pressurized metered dose inhalers : Chlorofluorocarbon to hydrofluoroalkane transition-Valve performance : pMDI in transition: CFC to HFA formulations
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 1999Co-Authors: R.harris CummingsAbstract:This article reviews the issues related to the performance of valves in metered dose inhalers with respect to Chlorofluorocarbon propellant replacement. Reformulation of existing Chlorofluorocarbon-based products with hydrofluoroalkane propellants has been a much more difficult task than initially anticipated, complicated by the need to concurrently develop better performing valves with cleaner extractive profiles. This paper will examine issues related to the reformulation and development of new valves and the tests and procedures used to evaluate valve performance. Evaluation of valve performance will consider the tests performed: mechanisms by which valves fail and analytic testing errors that can complicate the interpretation of results.
Michelle J Alfa - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
comparison of ion plasma vaporized hydrogen peroxide and 100 ethylene oxide sterilizers to the 12 88 ethylene oxide gas sterilizer
Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, 1996Co-Authors: Michelle J Alfa, Pat Degagne, Nancy Olson, T PuchalskiAbstract:OBJECTIVE: The performance of a standard gas sterilizer, which uses a mixture of 12% ethylene oxide (EtO) and 88% Chlorofluorocarbon as the sterilizing gas (12/88), was compared to selected gas, ion plasma, and vaporized hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) sterilizers that do not use Chlorofluorocarbons. The effect of serum and salt on sterilizer performance was evaluated. DESIGN: Test carriers (porcelain and stainless steel penicylinders, or 125-cm lengths of plastic tubing [internal diameter of 3.2 mm]) were inoculated with Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Mycobacterium chelonei, Bacillus stearothermophilus spores, Bacillus subtilis spores, and Bacillus circulans spores and then subjected to sterilization using 12/88, 100% EtO, ion plasma, or vaporized H2O2. The bacterial inoculum was prepared with and without 10% serum and 0.65% salt, and the residual bacterial load after sterilization as determined using viable counts. RESULTS: All of the sterilizers tested effected a six-log10 reduction of the bacterial inoculum on penicylinders, unless 10% serum and 0.65% salt were present, in which case the 100% EtO, vaporized H2O2, and ion plasma sterilizers were not as effective as the 12/88 sterilizer. None of the sterilizers could eradicate 10(6) CFU of all of the bacteria in 10% serum and 0.65% salt when inoculated inside a narrow lumen. CONCLUSIONS: The margin of safety for the 100% EtO, vaporized H2O2, and ion plasma sterilizers is less than that of the 12/88 sterilizer. The inability of all sterilizers, including the 12/88, to kill organisms in narrow lumens reliably when serum and salt were present raises concern about the current practice of gas sterilization of flexible endoscopes.
-
Comparison of ion plasma, vaporized hydrogen peroxide, and 100% ethylene oxide sterilizers to the 12/88 ethylene oxide gas sterilizer.
Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, 1996Co-Authors: Michelle J Alfa, Pat Degagne, Nancy Olson, T PuchalskiAbstract:OBJECTIVE: The performance of a standard gas sterilizer, which uses a mixture of 12% ethylene oxide (EtO) and 88% Chlorofluorocarbon as the sterilizing gas (12/88), was compared to selected gas, ion plasma, and vaporized hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) sterilizers that do not use Chlorofluorocarbons. The effect of serum and salt on sterilizer performance was evaluated. DESIGN: Test carriers (porcelain and stainless steel penicylinders, or 125-cm lengths of plastic tubing [internal diameter of 3.2 mm]) were inoculated with Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Mycobacterium chelonei, Bacillus stearothermophilus spores, Bacillus subtilis spores, and Bacillus circulans spores and then subjected to sterilization using 12/88, 100% EtO, ion plasma, or vaporized H2O2. The bacterial inoculum was prepared with and without 10% serum and 0.65% salt, and the residual bacterial load after sterilization as determined using viable counts. RESULTS: All of the sterilizers tested effected a six-log10 reduction of the bacterial inoculum on penicylinders, unless 10% serum and 0.65% salt were present, in which case the 100% EtO, vaporized H2O2, and ion plasma sterilizers were not as effective as the 12/88 sterilizer. None of the sterilizers could eradicate 10(6) CFU of all of the bacteria in 10% serum and 0.65% salt when inoculated inside a narrow lumen. CONCLUSIONS: The margin of safety for the 100% EtO, vaporized H2O2, and ion plasma sterilizers is less than that of the 12/88 sterilizer. The inability of all sterilizers, including the 12/88, to kill organisms in narrow lumens reliably when serum and salt were present raises concern about the current practice of gas sterilization of flexible endoscopes.
-
Comparison of ion plasma, vaporized hydrogen peroxide, and 100% ethylene oxide sterilizers to the 12/88 ethylene oxide gas sterilizer.
Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, 1996Co-Authors: Michelle J Alfa, Pat Degagne, Nancy Olson, T PuchalskiAbstract:OBJECTIVE: The performance of a standard gas sterilizer, which uses a mixture of 12% ethylene oxide (EtO) and 88% Chlorofluorocarbon as the sterilizing gas (12/88), was compared to selected gas, ion plasma, and vaporized hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) sterilizers that do not use Chlorofluorocarbons. The effect of serum and salt on sterilizer performance was evaluated. DESIGN: Test carriers (porcelain and stainless steel penicylinders, or 125-cm lengths of plastic tubing [internal diameter of 3.2 mm]) were inoculated with Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Mycobacterium chelonei, Bacillus stearothermophilus spores, Bacillus subtilis spores, and Bacillus circulans spores and then subjected to sterilization using 12/88, 100% EtO, ion plasma, or vaporized H2O2. The bacterial inoculum was prepared with and without 10% serum and 0.65% salt, and the residual bacterial load after sterilization as determined using viable counts. RESULTS: All of the sterilizers tested effected a six-log10 reduction of the bacterial inoculum on penicylinders, unless 10% serum and 0.65% salt were present, in which case the 100% EtO, vaporized H2O2, and ion plasma sterilizers were not as effective as the 12/88 sterilizer. None of the sterilizers could eradicate 10(6) CFU of all of the bacteria in 10% serum and 0.65% salt when inoculated inside a narrow lumen. CONCLUSIONS: The margin of safety for the 100% EtO, vaporized H2O2, and ion plasma sterilizers is less than that of the 12/88 sterilizer. The inability of all sterilizers, including the 12/88, to kill organisms in narrow lumens reliably when serum and salt were present raises concern about the current practice of gas sterilization of flexible endoscopes.
Pat Degagne - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
comparison of ion plasma vaporized hydrogen peroxide and 100 ethylene oxide sterilizers to the 12 88 ethylene oxide gas sterilizer
Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, 1996Co-Authors: Michelle J Alfa, Pat Degagne, Nancy Olson, T PuchalskiAbstract:OBJECTIVE: The performance of a standard gas sterilizer, which uses a mixture of 12% ethylene oxide (EtO) and 88% Chlorofluorocarbon as the sterilizing gas (12/88), was compared to selected gas, ion plasma, and vaporized hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) sterilizers that do not use Chlorofluorocarbons. The effect of serum and salt on sterilizer performance was evaluated. DESIGN: Test carriers (porcelain and stainless steel penicylinders, or 125-cm lengths of plastic tubing [internal diameter of 3.2 mm]) were inoculated with Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Mycobacterium chelonei, Bacillus stearothermophilus spores, Bacillus subtilis spores, and Bacillus circulans spores and then subjected to sterilization using 12/88, 100% EtO, ion plasma, or vaporized H2O2. The bacterial inoculum was prepared with and without 10% serum and 0.65% salt, and the residual bacterial load after sterilization as determined using viable counts. RESULTS: All of the sterilizers tested effected a six-log10 reduction of the bacterial inoculum on penicylinders, unless 10% serum and 0.65% salt were present, in which case the 100% EtO, vaporized H2O2, and ion plasma sterilizers were not as effective as the 12/88 sterilizer. None of the sterilizers could eradicate 10(6) CFU of all of the bacteria in 10% serum and 0.65% salt when inoculated inside a narrow lumen. CONCLUSIONS: The margin of safety for the 100% EtO, vaporized H2O2, and ion plasma sterilizers is less than that of the 12/88 sterilizer. The inability of all sterilizers, including the 12/88, to kill organisms in narrow lumens reliably when serum and salt were present raises concern about the current practice of gas sterilization of flexible endoscopes.
-
Comparison of ion plasma, vaporized hydrogen peroxide, and 100% ethylene oxide sterilizers to the 12/88 ethylene oxide gas sterilizer.
Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, 1996Co-Authors: Michelle J Alfa, Pat Degagne, Nancy Olson, T PuchalskiAbstract:OBJECTIVE: The performance of a standard gas sterilizer, which uses a mixture of 12% ethylene oxide (EtO) and 88% Chlorofluorocarbon as the sterilizing gas (12/88), was compared to selected gas, ion plasma, and vaporized hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) sterilizers that do not use Chlorofluorocarbons. The effect of serum and salt on sterilizer performance was evaluated. DESIGN: Test carriers (porcelain and stainless steel penicylinders, or 125-cm lengths of plastic tubing [internal diameter of 3.2 mm]) were inoculated with Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Mycobacterium chelonei, Bacillus stearothermophilus spores, Bacillus subtilis spores, and Bacillus circulans spores and then subjected to sterilization using 12/88, 100% EtO, ion plasma, or vaporized H2O2. The bacterial inoculum was prepared with and without 10% serum and 0.65% salt, and the residual bacterial load after sterilization as determined using viable counts. RESULTS: All of the sterilizers tested effected a six-log10 reduction of the bacterial inoculum on penicylinders, unless 10% serum and 0.65% salt were present, in which case the 100% EtO, vaporized H2O2, and ion plasma sterilizers were not as effective as the 12/88 sterilizer. None of the sterilizers could eradicate 10(6) CFU of all of the bacteria in 10% serum and 0.65% salt when inoculated inside a narrow lumen. CONCLUSIONS: The margin of safety for the 100% EtO, vaporized H2O2, and ion plasma sterilizers is less than that of the 12/88 sterilizer. The inability of all sterilizers, including the 12/88, to kill organisms in narrow lumens reliably when serum and salt were present raises concern about the current practice of gas sterilization of flexible endoscopes.
-
Comparison of ion plasma, vaporized hydrogen peroxide, and 100% ethylene oxide sterilizers to the 12/88 ethylene oxide gas sterilizer.
Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, 1996Co-Authors: Michelle J Alfa, Pat Degagne, Nancy Olson, T PuchalskiAbstract:OBJECTIVE: The performance of a standard gas sterilizer, which uses a mixture of 12% ethylene oxide (EtO) and 88% Chlorofluorocarbon as the sterilizing gas (12/88), was compared to selected gas, ion plasma, and vaporized hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) sterilizers that do not use Chlorofluorocarbons. The effect of serum and salt on sterilizer performance was evaluated. DESIGN: Test carriers (porcelain and stainless steel penicylinders, or 125-cm lengths of plastic tubing [internal diameter of 3.2 mm]) were inoculated with Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Mycobacterium chelonei, Bacillus stearothermophilus spores, Bacillus subtilis spores, and Bacillus circulans spores and then subjected to sterilization using 12/88, 100% EtO, ion plasma, or vaporized H2O2. The bacterial inoculum was prepared with and without 10% serum and 0.65% salt, and the residual bacterial load after sterilization as determined using viable counts. RESULTS: All of the sterilizers tested effected a six-log10 reduction of the bacterial inoculum on penicylinders, unless 10% serum and 0.65% salt were present, in which case the 100% EtO, vaporized H2O2, and ion plasma sterilizers were not as effective as the 12/88 sterilizer. None of the sterilizers could eradicate 10(6) CFU of all of the bacteria in 10% serum and 0.65% salt when inoculated inside a narrow lumen. CONCLUSIONS: The margin of safety for the 100% EtO, vaporized H2O2, and ion plasma sterilizers is less than that of the 12/88 sterilizer. The inability of all sterilizers, including the 12/88, to kill organisms in narrow lumens reliably when serum and salt were present raises concern about the current practice of gas sterilization of flexible endoscopes.
Nancy Olson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
comparison of ion plasma vaporized hydrogen peroxide and 100 ethylene oxide sterilizers to the 12 88 ethylene oxide gas sterilizer
Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, 1996Co-Authors: Michelle J Alfa, Pat Degagne, Nancy Olson, T PuchalskiAbstract:OBJECTIVE: The performance of a standard gas sterilizer, which uses a mixture of 12% ethylene oxide (EtO) and 88% Chlorofluorocarbon as the sterilizing gas (12/88), was compared to selected gas, ion plasma, and vaporized hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) sterilizers that do not use Chlorofluorocarbons. The effect of serum and salt on sterilizer performance was evaluated. DESIGN: Test carriers (porcelain and stainless steel penicylinders, or 125-cm lengths of plastic tubing [internal diameter of 3.2 mm]) were inoculated with Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Mycobacterium chelonei, Bacillus stearothermophilus spores, Bacillus subtilis spores, and Bacillus circulans spores and then subjected to sterilization using 12/88, 100% EtO, ion plasma, or vaporized H2O2. The bacterial inoculum was prepared with and without 10% serum and 0.65% salt, and the residual bacterial load after sterilization as determined using viable counts. RESULTS: All of the sterilizers tested effected a six-log10 reduction of the bacterial inoculum on penicylinders, unless 10% serum and 0.65% salt were present, in which case the 100% EtO, vaporized H2O2, and ion plasma sterilizers were not as effective as the 12/88 sterilizer. None of the sterilizers could eradicate 10(6) CFU of all of the bacteria in 10% serum and 0.65% salt when inoculated inside a narrow lumen. CONCLUSIONS: The margin of safety for the 100% EtO, vaporized H2O2, and ion plasma sterilizers is less than that of the 12/88 sterilizer. The inability of all sterilizers, including the 12/88, to kill organisms in narrow lumens reliably when serum and salt were present raises concern about the current practice of gas sterilization of flexible endoscopes.
-
Comparison of ion plasma, vaporized hydrogen peroxide, and 100% ethylene oxide sterilizers to the 12/88 ethylene oxide gas sterilizer.
Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, 1996Co-Authors: Michelle J Alfa, Pat Degagne, Nancy Olson, T PuchalskiAbstract:OBJECTIVE: The performance of a standard gas sterilizer, which uses a mixture of 12% ethylene oxide (EtO) and 88% Chlorofluorocarbon as the sterilizing gas (12/88), was compared to selected gas, ion plasma, and vaporized hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) sterilizers that do not use Chlorofluorocarbons. The effect of serum and salt on sterilizer performance was evaluated. DESIGN: Test carriers (porcelain and stainless steel penicylinders, or 125-cm lengths of plastic tubing [internal diameter of 3.2 mm]) were inoculated with Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Mycobacterium chelonei, Bacillus stearothermophilus spores, Bacillus subtilis spores, and Bacillus circulans spores and then subjected to sterilization using 12/88, 100% EtO, ion plasma, or vaporized H2O2. The bacterial inoculum was prepared with and without 10% serum and 0.65% salt, and the residual bacterial load after sterilization as determined using viable counts. RESULTS: All of the sterilizers tested effected a six-log10 reduction of the bacterial inoculum on penicylinders, unless 10% serum and 0.65% salt were present, in which case the 100% EtO, vaporized H2O2, and ion plasma sterilizers were not as effective as the 12/88 sterilizer. None of the sterilizers could eradicate 10(6) CFU of all of the bacteria in 10% serum and 0.65% salt when inoculated inside a narrow lumen. CONCLUSIONS: The margin of safety for the 100% EtO, vaporized H2O2, and ion plasma sterilizers is less than that of the 12/88 sterilizer. The inability of all sterilizers, including the 12/88, to kill organisms in narrow lumens reliably when serum and salt were present raises concern about the current practice of gas sterilization of flexible endoscopes.
-
Comparison of ion plasma, vaporized hydrogen peroxide, and 100% ethylene oxide sterilizers to the 12/88 ethylene oxide gas sterilizer.
Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, 1996Co-Authors: Michelle J Alfa, Pat Degagne, Nancy Olson, T PuchalskiAbstract:OBJECTIVE: The performance of a standard gas sterilizer, which uses a mixture of 12% ethylene oxide (EtO) and 88% Chlorofluorocarbon as the sterilizing gas (12/88), was compared to selected gas, ion plasma, and vaporized hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) sterilizers that do not use Chlorofluorocarbons. The effect of serum and salt on sterilizer performance was evaluated. DESIGN: Test carriers (porcelain and stainless steel penicylinders, or 125-cm lengths of plastic tubing [internal diameter of 3.2 mm]) were inoculated with Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Mycobacterium chelonei, Bacillus stearothermophilus spores, Bacillus subtilis spores, and Bacillus circulans spores and then subjected to sterilization using 12/88, 100% EtO, ion plasma, or vaporized H2O2. The bacterial inoculum was prepared with and without 10% serum and 0.65% salt, and the residual bacterial load after sterilization as determined using viable counts. RESULTS: All of the sterilizers tested effected a six-log10 reduction of the bacterial inoculum on penicylinders, unless 10% serum and 0.65% salt were present, in which case the 100% EtO, vaporized H2O2, and ion plasma sterilizers were not as effective as the 12/88 sterilizer. None of the sterilizers could eradicate 10(6) CFU of all of the bacteria in 10% serum and 0.65% salt when inoculated inside a narrow lumen. CONCLUSIONS: The margin of safety for the 100% EtO, vaporized H2O2, and ion plasma sterilizers is less than that of the 12/88 sterilizer. The inability of all sterilizers, including the 12/88, to kill organisms in narrow lumens reliably when serum and salt were present raises concern about the current practice of gas sterilization of flexible endoscopes.