ArticleMicroorganisms2025
Fogging with Hydrogen Peroxide and Hypochlorous Acid: An Option for Disinfection and Reuse of Disposable Isolation Gowns in Medical Practice.
Article in Microorganisms, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Hydrogen peroxide fogging of isolation gowns: Disinfection efficacy and VOC emissions.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A total of 1.6 million tons of personal protective equipment (PPE) waste has been generated daily since 2019 and this production has not abated since that time. Within PPEs, isolation gowns make up the largest percentage by weight of landfill waste. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of rapid, reproducible disinfection protocols to help facilitate safe reuse and minimize risks from microbial contamination. Disinfection of isolation gowns via fogging with hydrogen peroxide (HP) and hypochlorous acid (HC) were evaluated in the present study compared to standard ethylene oxide (EO) sterilization. This study was conducted at VCA West Coast Specialty and Emergency Animal Hospital in the United States. Ten isolation gowns (control) were cultured on tryptic soy agar contact plates in 10 predetermined areas to determine microbial load and morphology/types on non-sterile gowns before use. Following this, 10 gowns were fogged with 12% HP, and then once drying was complete, they were cultured in the predetermined areas for microbial load and morphology/types. This procedure was repeated with another set of 10 gowns fogged with 500 ppm HC. Lastly, 10 gowns were sterilized with EO using standard protocol and cultures were performed similarly. Median CFU (colony-forming unit) counts at 48 h for control, EO, HP, and HC were 4.5, 0, 0, and 0; at 72 h, they were 107, 0, 0, and 0, respectively. No significant difference was noted between the disinfection groups; post hoc pairwise analysis showed that the CFU counts for the disinfection groups were significantly lower than those for the control. The median percent reduction at 48 h for EO, HP, and HC was 100, 100, and 100; at 72 h, it was 100, 100, and 100, respectively. No significant difference was detected among the groups. The median number of microbe types for control, EO, HP, and HC was 2.5, 0, 0, and 0; there was no difference between the disinfection groups, but the number of microbe types was significantly higher for the control than for the disinfection groups. EO is environmentally toxic, expensive, and carcinogenic; it requires prolonged disinfection cycle times, expensive equipment, and trained personnel. This study suggests that HP and HC provide a cost-effective, relatively nontoxic, environmentally safe, and comparatively short disinfection time option for the disinfection and reuse of isolation gowns that does not require trained personnel or specialized equipment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.