Tomasino, S. F.Hamilton, Martin A.2017-07-132017-07-132007-03Tomasino SF, Hamilton MA, "Comparative evaluation of two quantitative test methods for determining the efficacy of liquid sporicides and sterilants on a hard surface: A precollaborative study," J AOAC International 2007 90(2):456-4641060-3271https://scholarworks.montana.edu/handle/1/13271Two quantitative carrier-based test methods for determining the efficacy of liquid sporicides and sterilants on a hard surface, the Standard Quantitative Carrier Test Method—ASTM E 2111-00 and an adaptation of a quantitative micro-method as reported by Sagripanti and Bonifacino, were compared in this study. The methods were selected based on their desirable characteristics (e.g., well-developed protocol, previous use with spores, fully quantitative, and use of readily available equipment) for testing liquid sporicides and sterilants on a hard surface. In this paper, the Sagripanti-Bonifacino procedure is referred to as the Three Step Method (TSM). AOAC Official Method 966.04 was included in this study as a reference method. Three laboratories participated in the evaluation. Three chemical treatments were tested: (1) 3000 ppm sodium hypochlorite with pH adjusted to 7.0, (2) a hydrogen peroxide/peroxyacetic acid product, and (3) 3000 ppm sodium hypochlorite with pH unadjusted (pH of approximately 10.0). A fourth treatment, 6000 ppm sodium hypochlorite solution with pH adjusted to 7.0, was included only for Method 966.04 as a positive control (high level of efficacy). The contact time was 10 min for all chemical treatments except the 6000 ppm sodium hypochlorite treatment which was tested at 30 min. Each chemical treatment was tested 3 times using each of the methods. Only 2 of the laboratories performed the AOAC method. Method performance was assessed by the within-laboratory variance, between-laboratory variance, and total variance associated with the log reduction (LR) estimates generated by each quantitative method. The quantitative methods performed similarly, and the LR values generated by each method were not statistically different for the 3 treatments evaluated. Based on feedback from the participating laboratories, compared to the TSM, ASTM E 2111-00 was more resource demanding and required more set-up time. The logistical and resource concerns identified for ASTM E 2111-00 were largely associated with the filtration process and counting bacterial colonies on filters. Thus, the TSM was determined to be the most suitable method.Article