Vapour vs aerosol hydrogen peroxide automated room decontamination systems compared

Bioquell White Paper aids specification of room decontamination technologies in hospital environments

The White Paper explains how hydrogen peroxide decontamination systems work

Healthcare operators are being given a helping hand when choosing the best process for decontaminating rooms and wards with the release of a new White Paper.

The efficacy of hydrogen peroxide-based automated room decontamination (ARD) systems in eliminating unwanted pathogens from surfaces makes them ideal for infection control in hospitals and bioburden management in pharmaceutical production.

Bioquell HPV should be the automatic response to bio-decontamination. Bioquell HPV eliminates doubt

Several systems are currently available, typically hydrogen peroxide vapour from 35% w/w hydrogen peroxide (HPV) and aerosolised hydrogen peroxide from 5-6% w/w hydrogen peroxide (AHP).

Although in principle both systems use hydrogen peroxide, the concentration, as well as the technologies used to deliver the active agent, are fundamentally different.

To help with specification and increase understanding, Bioquell, an expert in HPV bio-decontamination, has published a White Paper which compares both systems in terms of efficacy and potential for clinical impact.

Bioquell HPV is created from a rapid flash-evaporation of specially-formulated 35% w/w hydrogen peroxide solution. Once the vaporisation phase, and main kill phase, is over, the Bioquell technology begins an aeration phase, transforming hydrogen peroxide vapour back into water and oxygen. In contrast, AHP systems produce an aerosol from a solution containing 5-6% w/w hydrogen peroxide combined with other chemicals. Their process does not include any active aeration phase, but relies solely on passive breakdown of hydrogen peroxide over a long period of time before room re-entry is safe to proceed.

The main difference between the two technologies is that Bioquell HPV achieves a well-proven >6-log reduction of pathogens from all hospital surfaces. On the other hand, AHP systems are considerably less effective, reaching reductions in the 4-log range or lower, and, furthermore, suffer from incomplete distribution around an enclosure. This results in a variable level of reduction around a given enclosure. They are also significantly affected by high relative humidity (>50%) commonly experienced in indoor environments. A number of studies have shown that low-concentration AHP systems (5% w/w liquid hydrogen peroxide converted into an aerosol) eliminate 85-89% of C.difficile surface contamination. One study even reported that 50% of rooms remained contaminated with the pathogen. In comparison, Bioquell HPV reached total surface decontamination (100% reduction). Low hydrogen peroxide concentration combined with incomplete distribution of the solution into a room seems to be the main reasons why AHP systems scored so poorly compared to HPV.

Many studies demonstrate the supremacy of Bioquell HPV when it comes to hospital room decontamination

Fil Horta, Bioquell’s UK healthcare sales director, said: “Many studies demonstrate the supremacy of Bioquell HPV when it comes to hospital room decontamination. A long list of aspects such as efficacy, distribution, cycle time, safety, repeatability and reliability as well as regulatory position puts it ahead of AHP systems. Bioquell HPV should be the automatic response to bio-decontamination. Bioquell HPV eliminates doubt.”

To read the full Hydrogen peroxide automated room decontamination: vapour vs. aerosol systems White Paper, click here.

Companies