Vaporized Hydrogen Peroxide 

(VHP®) Decontamination of a 

Section of a Boeing 747 Cabin

Robert M. Shaffstall1

Robert P. Garner2

Joshua Bishop, Lora Cameron-Landis3

Donald L. Eddington, Gwen Hau3

Shawn Spera, Thaddeus Mielnik, James A. Thomas3

1

Civil Aerospace Medical Institute

Federal Aviation Administration

Oklahoma City, OK 73125

2

Former Federal Aviation Administration Employee

3

STERIS Corporation

Mentor, OH 4406

April 2006

Final Report

DOT/FAA/AM-06/10

Office of Aerospace Medicine

Washington, DC 20591
NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship 

of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest 

of information exchange. The United States Government 

assumes no liability for the contents thereof.

___________

This publication and all Office of Aerospace Medicine 

technical reports are available in full-text from the Civil 

Aerospace Medical Institute’s publications Web site: 

www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/oamtechreports/index.cfm
i

Technical Report Documentation Page 

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 

DOT/FAA/AM-06/10 

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date 

Vaporized Hydrogen Peroxide (VHP April 2006 ®) Decontamination of a Section of a 

Boeing 747 Cabin 6. Performing Organization Code 

 

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. 

Shaffstall RM,1 Garner RP,2 Bishop J,3 Cameron-Landis L,3 Eddington DL,3

Hau G,3

 Spera S,3 Mielnik T,3 Thomas JA3

 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 

 11. Contract or Grant No. 

1

FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute 

P.O. Box 25082

Oklahoma City, OK 73125 

2

Former Federal Aviation 

Administration Employee 

3

STERIS Corp., 

5960 Heisley Rd 

Mentor, OH 44060

 

12. Sponsoring Agency name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

Office of Aerospace Medicine 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

15. Supplemental Notes 

Work was accomplished under approved cooperative research and development task. 

16. Abstract 

The use of STERIS Corporation’s Vaporized Hydrogen Peroxide (VHP®)* technology as a potential biocide for 

aircraft decontamination was demonstrated in a cabin section of the Aircraft Environment Research Facility (an 

FAA-owned Boeing 747). When exposed to an appropriate concentration of VHP vapor in the cabin test section, 

biological indicators inoculated with 106

 colony forming units of Geobacillus stearothermophilus spores 

demonstrated a total suppression of culture growth. Efficacy was demonstrated with and without seats in the test 

section of the aircraft. The importance of adequate air mixing was also demonstrated. 

*VHP is a registered trademark of the STERIS Corportation 

 

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement 

 

 

Aircraft Decontamination, Decontaminants, Vaporized 

Hydrogen Peroxide, VHP Vapor, Aircraft Cabin Airflow 

Document is available to the public through the 

Defense Technical Information Center, Ft. Belvior, VA 

22060; and the National Technical Information 

Service, Springfield, VA 22161 

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price 

Unclassified Unclassified 14 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized 

1

Vaporized Hydrogen Peroxide (VHP®) 

Decontamination of a Section of a Boeing 747 Cabin

INTRODUCTION

Strategic Technology Enterprises (STE) a subsidiary of 

STERIS Corporation, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI) 

established a Cooperative Research and Development 

Agreement (CRDA) to evaluate Vaporized Hydrogen 

Peroxide (VHP®) technology as a potential aircraft 

decontaminant and to utilize the distribution pattern 

of the VHP vapor to support validation of theoretical 

cabin air flow models. 

Under this CRADA, Strategic Technology Enterprises would support CAMI in the validation of a 

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) model for 

aircraft cabins. It was anticipated that the ability to 

accurately measure VHP distribution patterns would 

assist in confirming CFD model predictions. The use 

of VHP technology could provide information relative 

to aircraft decontamination as well as the distribution 

of decontaminant materials. 

STE supplied the VHP technology, real time monitoring capability (near-infrared spectrophotometers), and 

personnel to operate the STE-supplied equipment. CAMI 

supplied the test facility, support personnel, and made the 

operational modifications needed to conduct the work. 

The equipment was set up and operated in a passenger 

section of the CAMI Boeing 747 Aircraft Environment 

Research Facility (AERF) cabin. A series of short trials 

were performed to develop the data necessary to verify 

the CFD model. Following the model validation trials, 

STE conducted trial runs in the same cabin section of 

the AERF using biological and chemical indicators (BIs 

and CIs) to provide data relative to the use of VHP vapor 

as a decontaminant. This report details the portions of 

the CRADA that pertain to the BI runs performed in 

the FAA/CAMI 747. Work related solely to the CFD 

verification support will not be addressed in this document unless it is relevant to the BI/CI runs.

BACKGROUND

Six years ago, CAMI obtained a Boeing 747-100 

fuselage to customize for use in studies and training to 

promote and improve aircraft cabin safety. The plane was 

designated the AERF. A project initiated in 2000 utilized 

the AERF as a test bed for the development of advanced 

simulations based on CFD to study contaminant distribution aboard transport aircraft. The development of 

CFD models using the 747 AERF as the realistic test and 

validation facility is an ongoing effort with model development by the University of Tennessee - Computational 

Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (UT-CFDL) and validation 

support by the CAMI Environmental Physiology Research Team. Although the CFD approach is applicable 

to a variety of cabin air quality issues, the focal aspect of 

these studies has been the distribution characteristics associated with the release of a chemical or biological agent 

in flight. Since this environment has been characterized 

in terms of airflow and used to support development of 

predictive algorithms, it represented a realistic environment for studying potential means of decontamination 

from a noxious biological exposure whether intentionally 

introduced into the cabin or inadvertently carried aboard 

through passenger illness.

The STERIS Corporation developed the VHP process, 

which has been widely used for the routine decontamination of enclosed environments and surfaces (1). It is an 

environmentally friendly technology and is in widespread 

use for sterile pharmaceutical processing (2), sterility testing (3), lyophilizer decontamination (4), biosafety cabinet 

decontamination, animal laboratory decontamination (5), 

equipment decontamination, etc. The biocide has been 

shown to be sporicidal (6), tuberculocidal (7), virucidal 

(8), bactericidal (9,10), fungicidal (9,10), and has been 

successfully used for the bioremediation of buildings contaminated with highly resistant biological weapons such as 

Bacillus anthracis spores. VHP technology demonstrates 

an excellent material compatibility profile, including use 

on electronic and electrical equipment (5,8), which is a 

highly desirable characteristic for use in aircraft interior 

decontamination. 

Recognizing that the possibility of cabin contamination exists, a validated, reliable means of decontaminating 

the aircraft and returning it to service is in the interest 

of passengers, crew, and aircraft operators. Developing 

decontamination strategies requires very meticulous investigation and analysis since the passenger cabin represents 

very specific environmental and performance constructs 

that cannot be compromised. Thus, the objective of this 

project was to demonstrate the effectiveness of VHP technology in eradicating representative biological contamination in a commercial transport environment and to use 
2

the VHP distribution patterns to assist in the validation 

of the CFD models developed by UT-CFDL.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Testing consisted of placing chemical and biological 

indicators in a section of the AERF Boeing 747-100 

aircraft. The VHP process was then introduced into 

the cabin section using four VHP 1000 generators. The 

VHP concentration and effectiveness were measured 

through the use of biological indictor coupons and VHP 

sensors. 

Test Facility: The AERF at the FAA/CAMI was utilized 

as the test facility. For these tests, a passenger cabin segment just aft of the entrance door in front of the wing 

was utilized. The segment is 32 feet long with a volume 

of approximately 5000 cubic feet. The test section was 

separated from the rest of the cabin by two bulkheads built 

specifically for the purpose of segmenting sections of the 

AERF. Tape and plastic sheeting was used throughout the 

cabin to minimize VHP leakage during the testing. The 

test section is shown schematically in Figure 1. 

VHP Generation: The VHP process was introduced 

into the cabin at four locations. Two generators (STERIS 

VHP 1000) were each located at either end of the cabin 

segment, outside of the test area itself. The generators are 

completely self-contained bio-decontamination systems 

with the ability to dehumidify, generate VHP vapor, 

and aerate sealed enclosures. The inlets and outlets of 

the generators passed into the cabin segment through 

openings in the bulkheads. Figure 1 also shows where the 

inlet points were located. The back bulkhead was used 

as the zero reference point of the Z-axis of the Cartesian 

grid characterizing the cabin segment. The generator 

inlet tubes were located at 108 and 216 inches from the 

back bulkhead on either side of the cabin. The inlets were 

76 inches off the floor (Y-axis), the outlet being located 

even with the bottom of the overhead luggage bin (Figure 

2). In a typical run, the generators were set to run an 

80- minute cycle, during which a 35% solution of VHP 

sterilant (Vaprox®)* was injected at a rate of 12 grams per 

minute. Therefore, the total amount of Vaprox injected 

into the cabin segment during a run was approximately 

3.88 kg, of which 1.36 kg was hydrogen peroxide vapor 

and 2.52 kg was water vapor. 

VHP Process Quantification Methods: Two methods 

were used to quantify the VHP concentrations in the 

cabin test section during the experiments. Near-infrared 

spectrophotometers (Hydrogen Peroxide Vapor Monitor, Guided Wave Inc., El Dorado Hills, CA) provided 

a real-time measurement of the VHP concentration in 

the range of 0.1 to 50 mg/l. The second VHP concentration measurement was accomplished using Chemical 

Indicators, (Steris Corp., 5960 Heisley Rd, Mentor, OH), 

which provided a simple, non-quantified color change 

indication that VHP vapor was present at the indicator 

location. CIs were paired with biological indicators, as 

described below. In addition, an estimate of VHP vapor 

delivery into the cabin could be derived from the velocity 

of the flow stream and the cross sectional area of the inlet 

tube. Hot wire anemometers were placed in the middle 

of the VHP inlet and the velocity recorded. Theresulting 

Cabin segment length (inches)

Overhead Luggage Bins

Figure 1. Diagram of the 747 AERF cabin section used to evaluate 

cabin airflow and VHP distribution. VHP vapor introduction points are 

identified in sections 5 and 13.

* Vaprox is a registered trademark of the STERIS Corporation
3

Figure 2. Photograph showing an overhead luggage rack, VHP vapor introduction piping, 

and hotwire anemometer.

Photograph 1. Photograph 2.

Figure 3. Photograph 1 showing the bulkhead penetration of the VHP Inlet pipe and VHP Return (open 

connector) into the test section of the AERF. Photograph 2 showing the STERIS model 1000 VHP.
4

Figure 4. Photographs showing the 747 AERF section with the seats removed and bulkheads 

isolating the test section of the aircraft. Photograph 1 is a view of the Forward bulkhead, and 

Photograph 2 is a view of the Aft bulkhead.

Photograph 1. Photograph 2.

Figure 5. Photograph 1 shows the Guided Wave Hydrogen Peroxide monitors installed in the test 

section of the 747 AERF. Photograph 2 illustrates how the Guided Wave and hot wire anemometer 

data cables were routed through the floor seat tracks.

Photograph 1. Photograph 2.
5

Table I. Identification and location of BI and CI test strips as shown in Figure 5. 

Sensor No. / Location Sensor No./ Location 

1 Fore Bulkhead, Center, 88” From Floor 

2 Fore Bulkhead, Center, 56” From Floor 

3 Fore Bulkhead, Center, 24” From Floor 

4 Right Fore Cabin, 88” From Floor 

5 Right Fore Cabin, 56” From Floor 

6 Right Fore Cabin, 24” From Floor 

7 Center Fore Cabin, 88” From Floor 

8 Center Fore Cabin, 56” From Floor 

9 Center Fore Cabin, 24” From Floor 

10 Left Fore Cabin, 88” From Floor 

11 Left Fore Cabin, 56” From Floor 

12 Left Fore Cabin, 24” From Floor 

13 Right Mid Cabin, 88” From Floor 

14 Right Mid Cabin, 56” From Floor 

15 Right Mid Cabin, 24” From Floor 

16 Left Mid Cabin, 88” From Floor 

17 Left Mid Cabin, 56” From Floor 

18 Left Mid Cabin, 24” From Floor 

19 Under Center Luggage Area, Fore End, 

 72” From Floor 

20 Under Center Luggage Area, Fore End, 

 56” From Floor 

21 Under Center Luggage Area, Fore End, 

 24” From Floor 

22 Under Center Luggage Area, Middle, 72” 

 From Floor 

23 Under Center Luggage Area, Middle, 56” 

 From Floor 

24 Under Center Luggage Area, Middle, 24” 

 From Floor 

25 Under Center Luggage Area, Aft End, 72” 

 From Floor 

26 Under Center Luggage Area, Aft End, 56” 

 From Floor 

27 Under Center Luggage Area, Aft End, 24” 

 From Floor 

28 Under Right Luggage Area, Fore, Corner,

 High 

29 Under Right Luggage Area, Fore,

 Corner, Low 

30 Under Right Luggage Area, Mid 

 Cabin Wall, High 

31 Under Right Luggage Area, Mid 

 Cabin Wall, Low 

32 Under Right Luggage Area, Aft,

 Corner, High 

33 Under Right Luggage Area, Aft,

 Corner, Low 

34 Under Left Luggage Area, Aft, Corner, 

 High 

35 Under Left Luggage Area, Aft, Corner, 

 Low 

36 Under Left Luggage Area, Mid Cabin 

 Wall, High 

37 Under Left Luggage Area, Mid Cabin 

 Wall, Low 

38 Under Left Luggage Area, Fore, 

 Corner, High 

39 Under Left Luggage Area, Fore, 

 Corner, Low 

40 Right Luggage Bin, Fore 

41 Right Luggage Bin, Mid Cabin 

42 Right Luggage Bin, Aft 

43 Left Luggage Bin, Aft 

44 Left Luggage Bin, Mid Cabin 

45 Left Luggage Bin, Fore 

46 Center Luggage Bin, Right Side, Mid 

 Cabin 

47 Center Luggage Bin, Right Side, Aft 

48 Center Luggage Bin, Left Side, Aft 

49 Center Luggage Bin, Left Side, Mid 

 Cabin 

50 Top Right Corner, Fore (Above 

 Luggage Bin) 

51 Top Right Corner, Aft (Above 

 Luggage Bin) 

52 Top Left Corner, Aft (Above Luggage 

 Bin) 

53 Top Left Corner, Fore (Above 

 Luggage Bin) 
6

Figure 6. Photograph of BIs and CIs (positions no. 25 – 27, as shown in Figure 7 

and identified in Table I) attached to wire in preparation for testing.
7

Figure 7. Cabin section showing location of monitors, VHP inlets, and circulating fans. 

1,2,3

4,5,6 7,8,9 10,11,12 

13,14,15 16,17,18 

19,20,21

22,23,24

25,26,27

28,29

30,31

32,33 34,35

36,37

38,39

41- Bin 

42- Bin 43- Bin 

44- Bin 

40- Bin 

45- Bin 

46- Bin 

47- Bin 48- Bin 

49- Bin 

50

52

53

Aft

Right Side Left Side 

Fore

VHP In 

VHP In 

VHP In

VHP In

Oscillating Fan (Typ) 

Guided Wave 

Monitors 

51
8

volume was then converted to a VHP mass estimate. 

Dräger Accuro hand pump environmental monitors, 

with 0.1 to 3.0 ppm H2O2 sensitivity detection tubes, 

were used to monitor potential VHP leakage from the 

test area and to verify interior VHP residual levels at the 

end of a test.

Biological Indicators (BIs): BIs were used to provide 

functional assessments of the VHP level present in the 

cabin. The biological indicators were tri-pack stainless 

steel coupons inoculated with approximately 104, 105, 

and 106 colony forming units (CFU) with Geobacillus 

stearothermophilus spores packaged in sub-divided Tyvek®* 

envelopes (Apex Laboratories, Inc.). The CI and BI 

packets were distributed throughout the cabin segment 

using wires with paper clips located at positions to give 

the desired height for each BI/CI set. The CI/BI locations were numbered sequentially (1 – 53) and located 

in the cabin segment as shown in Figure 7. In addition 

to the BIs exposed during the testing, two indicators 

that were not exposed to VHP treatment were cultured 

as a positive growth control. Following each test the 

BIs were left sealed in their Tyvek envelopes, packaged 

separately from the controls, and transported to STERIS 

laboratories for analysis. 

Biological Indicator Processing: Each BI consisted of 

three metal coupons. One coupon was inoculated with 

104 CFU, one with 105 CFU, and one with 106 CFU. 

Tryptic soy broth was aseptically dispensed into sterile test 

tubes in 10 ml aliquots. The Tyvek envelopes containing 

the BI coupons were aseptically opened in a biological 

safety cabinet, the coupons removed from the envelope 

with sterile forceps, and each coupon was placed in an 

individual tube of media. The tubes were incubated at 

57°C for 24 hours prior to being scored for growth/no 

growth. The positive controls were transferred into the 

media last to avoid cross-contamination. After scoring for 

growth/no growth, tubes were selected for Gram staining 

to confirm the identity of any growing organism(s). If 

one tube in a series was negative for growth, another tube 

from the same series was selected for Gram staining. If 

all the tubes in one rack were positive for growth, a tube 

was randomly selected for Gram staining. 

Test Conditions: Table II shows the test conditions used 

during the VHP technology evaluations. To develop a basic 

understanding of the airflow pattern and distribution of 

the VHP process, the first four tests were conducted with 

the passenger seats removed. The passenger seats were 

reinstalled in the cabin section for the remaining two 

tests. The first test was conducted to evaluate the cabin 

air circulation patterns; therefore, the cabin air circulation was in operation. The objectives of the remaining 

tests were to assess the distribution and effectiveness of 

the VHP generators with/without auxiliary circulation, 

so the aircraft air circulation system was not used. The 

VHP generators had the capability to recirculate air from 

the test section of the cabin, and this recirculation feature 

was evaluated in test series 2, 3, and 5. Four standard 

16 in. oscillating fans were used to assist air mixing in 

tests 3-6. 

Cabin Air Circulation On represents only the use of 

the 747’s built-in air circulation system. This system feeds 

air to the cabin just below the outboard luggage bins and 

removes air via the outboard floor level vents. 

VHP Recirculation Yes incorporated the VHP 1000’s 

built-in capability to recirculate hydrogen peroxide laden 

air from the treated space through the generator where 

it was freed from residual hydrogen peroxide and water 

vapor, then recharged with VHP vapor prior to being 

reintroduced to the treated space. 

VHP Recirculation No utilized the VHP 1000 only 

to feed VHP laden air into the treated space; the spent 

hydrogen peroxide vapor was removed from the cabin 

test section via the outboard floor vents, driven by a very 

slight overpressure effect. 

Note: Pre-test equipment evaluations determined that 

the 11⁄4” piping installed for the VHP inlet generated a 

high airflow velocity relative to the cabin flow and would 

disrupt the cabin air circulation patterns for CFD model 

support work. To reduce the VHP inlet flow velocity, a 

3” diameter inlet pipe was installed on the one VHP 

TABLE II. Test Matrix and description of test conditions. 

Test

Series

Cabin

Configuration

Cabin Air 

Circulation

VHP

Recirculation 

Auxiliary 

Oscillating Fans 

1 No seats On No No 

2 No seats Off Yes No 

3 No seats Off Yes Yes 

4 No seats Off No Yes 

5 Seats Installed Off Yes Yes 

6 Seats Installed Off No Yes 

* Tyvek is a registered trademark of the DuPont Corporation.
9

1000 generator inlet pipe that would be used for the 

CFD work. With the expected flow velocity reduction, 

the new inlet installation was insulated to ensure that 

VHP condensation did not occur as the flow was slowed 

in the pipe. Subsequent testing confirmed the calculated 

velocity reduction. Upon completion to these first (CFD) 

tests, the VHP inlet from the generator was returned to 

its original configuration for use in the BI/CI tests.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

The biological indicator results from all runs are shown 

in Table III. A reading of <104 may indicate minimal 

biological reduction, while a reading of >106 indicates 

complete kill of all coupons contained on the particular 

biological indicator. Intermediate levels of biological 

reduction are reported based on the coupon showing no 

growth, where growth was seen on the next higher-level 

coupon. 

Test 1 results, with only the aircraft ventilation system 

running for VHP distribution, showed measurable kill 

only in the biological indicators that were in a nearly 

direct line with the VHP inlets. The VHP-affected BIs 

were located under the central luggage bins at the intermediate and low levels. This suggests that in the absence 

of auxiliary air mixing there is minimal VHP migration 

in the fore-aft direction within the cabin, and that the 

VHP vapor was highly diluted by incoming ventilation 

air and efficiently removed by the floor level vents before 

a sporicidal concentration could be reached. It should be 

noted that the AERF ventilation system was incapable 

of being run with full or partial recirculation; it could 

only be run as a flow-through system. An average VHP 

concentration is not meaningful for this run where a 

non-uniform concentration was observed. 

Test 2 was performed to determine mixing effectiveness 

with the four auxiliary fans in use. The run was initiated 

and then the four VHP 1000 generators sequentially 

aborted at times of 3, 4, 8.5 and 34 minutes into their VHP 

cycles. The results of the biological indicators show that a 

very consistent level of kill (5 log) was experienced. The 

measured maximum VHP concentration when the fourth 

generator was aborted was 285 ppm. The consistency of 

kill level demonstrates that the atmosphere within the test 

section was efficiently mixed by the four oscillating fans 

supporting the uniform level of kill observed. 

Tests 3 and 4 were designed to determine if there was 

any difference between running the VHP generators in 

the normal recirculation mode (as used in the majority 

of room and isolator applications) versus allowing spent 

hydrogen peroxide vapor to exit the test section via the 

cabin exhaust ventilation system. These two runs were 

completed without the cabin seats in place, so the potential perturbation to the airflows that the seats might 

cause would not be a factor. Under the test conditions, 

both techniques demonstrated complete kill, and both 

runs showed average maximum VHP concentrations of 

approximately 600 ppm.

Tests 5 and 6 were a repeat of the conditions of runs 

3 and 4, respectively. For these tests, all of the cabin area 

seats were replaced to provide a situation more consistent 

with that expected in a real-world decontamination event 

(no pictures of the cabin set up as run with seats are 

available; the normal 3-5-3 layout for each row of seats 

was used). The possibility still existed that the presence 

of the seats would have an impact on VHP distribution 

with only the four auxiliary fans to provide mixing. The 

results were clear, and both runs demonstrated complete 

kill and average maximum VHP concentrations comparable to tests 3 and 4. 

The CIs used in this evaluation provided a non-qualitative indication of the presence or absence of VHP vapor. 

During the first test (AERF air circulation operating), only 

the CIs located in close proximity to the VHP outlets 

showed a color change indicating the presence of VHP 

vapor. CI results from the second test (in which the VHP 

generators were sequentially shut down) showed uniform 

partial color change, indicating a moderate and uniform 

concentration of VHP vapor throughout the cabin. CIs 

in all subsequent tests showed a complete color change, 

indicating a high concentration of VHP vapor. During 

Test 1, the Guided Wave monitors were located near the 

centerline of the aircraft section on the same fore-aft cabin 

axis as the VHP generator inlet. On the vertical axis, one 

of the VHP sampling points was located high, just under 

the center luggage bin, and the other was located halfway between the floor and the luggage bin. The monitor 

located high indicated a maximum VHP concentration of 

213 ppm. The mid-height sensor indicated a maximum 

VHP concentration of 780 ppm. The BIs located in this 

area (locations 17, 18, and 23) showed a partial degree 

of sporicidal action, indicating a localized concentration 

of VHP vapor. Test 2, with non-uniformly functioning 

VHP generators, showed an even distribution of VHP 

vapor, albeit at a relatively low concentration (maximum 

285 ppm). The VHP concentration in the remaining 

tests averaged 550 – 640 ppm and, as indicated by the 

maximum color change of the CIs and uniform sporicidal 

action measured by the BIs, was uniformly distributed 

throughout the cabin section. 
10

Table III. Biological Indicator Results, All tests 

Position Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Test 5 Test 6

Control < 104 < 104

 < 104 < 104 < 104 < 104

Control < 104 < 104

 < 104 < 104 < 104 < 104

1 < 104 > 106

 > 106 > 106 > 106 > 106

2 < 104 105 > 106

 > 106 > 106 > 106

3 < 104 105 > 106

 > 106 > 106 > 106

4 < 104 105 > 106 > 106 > 106 > 106

5 < 104 105 > 106 > 106 > 106 > 106

6 < 104 105 > 106

 > 106 > 106 > 106

7 < 104 105 > 106

 > 106 > 106 > 106

8 < 104 105 > 106 > 106 > 106 > 106

9 < 104 105 > 106

 > 106 > 106 > 106

10 < 104 105 > 106

 > 106 > 106 > 106

11 < 104 105 > 106 > 106 > 106 > 106

12 < 104 105 > 106

 > 106 > 106 > 106

13 < 104 105 > 106 > 106 > 106 > 106

14 105 105 > 106 > 106 > 106 > 106

15 105 105 > 106

 > 106 > 106 > 106

16 < 104 105 > 106

 > 106 > 106 > 106

17 > 106 105 > 106 > 106 > 106 > 106

18 105 104 > 106

 > 106 > 106 > 106

19 < 104 104 > 106

 > 106 > 106 > 106

20 < 104 105 > 106 > 106 > 106 > 106

21 < 104 105 > 106

 > 106 > 106 > 106

22 < 104 105 > 106 > 106 > 106 > 106

23 > 106 105 > 106 > 106 > 106 > 106

24 < 104 105 > 106

 > 106 > 106 > 106

25 < 104 105 > 106

 > 106 > 106 > 106

26 < 104 105 > 106 > 106 > 106 > 106

27 < 104 105 > 106

 > 106 > 106 > 106

28 < 104 105 > 106 > 106 > 106 > 106

29 < 104 > 106 > 106 > 106 > 106 > 106

30 < 104 105 > 106

 > 106 > 106 > 106

31 < 104 < 104 > 106 > 106 > 106 > 106

32 < 104 105 > 106 > 106 > 106 > 106

33 < 104 105 > 106

 > 106 > 106 > 106

34 < 104 104 > 106

 > 106 > 106 > 106

35 104 105 > 106 > 106 > 106 > 106

36 < 104 105 > 106

 > 106 > 106 > 106

37 < 104 105 > 106 > 106 > 106 > 106

38 < 104 104 > 106 > 106 > 106 > 106

39 104 105 > 106

 > 106 > 106 > 106

40 < 104 105 > 106

 > 106 > 106 > 106

41 < 104 105 > 106 > 106 > 106 > 106

42 < 104 105 > 106

 > 106 > 106 > 106

43 < 104 105 > 106

 > 106 > 106 > 106

44 < 104 < 104 > 106 > 106 > 106 > 106

45 < 104 105 > 106

 > 106 > 106 > 106

46 < 104 105 > 106

 > 106 > 106 > 106

47 < 104 105 > 106 > 106 > 106 > 106

48 < 104 104 > 106

 > 106 > 106 > 106

49 < 104 105 > 106

 > 106 > 106 > 106

50 < 104 105 > 106 > 106 > 106 > 106

51 < 104 105 > 106

 > 106 > 106 > 106

52 < 104 105 > 106

 > 106 > 106 > 106

53 < 104 105 > 106 > 106 > 106 > 106
11

CONCLUSIONS 

When adequate concentrations of VHP vapor were 

developed in the test section of the CAMI 747AERF, a 

complete kill of test coupons inoculated with 106 CFU 

of Geobacillus stearothermophilus, a spore-forming microorganism, was achieved. Four STERIS VHP 1000 

generators running at a Vaprox injection rate of 12g/min 

provided an adequate sporicidal concentration of VHP 

vapor for exposed areas of the 5000 cubic foot aircraft 

section. When fans were operated to support thorough air 

mixing, this level of sporicidal action was demonstrated 

uniformly throughout the test cabin with and without 

passenger seats installed. The complete organism kill 

was achieved on test coupons located in open-air areas 

of the cabin and on test coupons located in the luggage 

bins. Evaluations of the effect of VHP vapor on materials 

were not conducted, and the sporicidal effect of VHP 

vapor on carpets, seat cushions, and less accessible areas 

of the aircraft was not evaluated. However, no observable 

changes to the materials of the cabin test section or its 

contents were noted at the conclusion of the VHP live 

testing. When only the AERF cabin air ventilation system 

(non-recirculating) was used, mixing was inefficient, and 

uniform biological reduction within the cabin test section was not observed. With the known air circulation 

patterns of the AERF and other aircraft, this effect was 

expected. Based on this study, technology shows promise 

as an aircraft decontaminant. 

REFERENCES

1. N.A. Klapes and D. Vesley. Appl Environ Microbiol, 

1990, 56, 503.

2. M. Jahnke and G. Lauth. Pharm Eng, 1997, 17, 

96.

3. J.E. Akers, J.P. Agallaco, and C.M. Kennedy J Pharm 

Sci and Tech, 1995, 49, 140.

4. J.W. Johnson, J.F. Arnold, S.L. Nail, and E. Renzi. 

J Pharm Sci and Tech, 1992, 46, 215.

5. J. Krause, G. McDonnel, and H. Riedesel. Cont 

Topics, 2001, 40, 18.

6. M. Kobuko, T. Inoue, and J. Akers. J Pharm Sci 

Technol, 1998, 52, 228. 

7. Kahnert and H.E. Kaufmann. “Evaluation of the 

use of Vaporized Hydrogen Peroxide for room decontamination in the environmental control of Mycobacterium tuberculosis at MPI Berlin, Germany,” 

Unpublished Internal Report from Max-Planck 

Institut für Infektionsbiologie.

8. R.A. Heckert, M. Best, L.T. Jordan, G.C. Dulac, 

D.L. Eddington, and W.G. Sterritt. Appl Environ 

Microbi, 1997, 63, 3916.

9. N. A. Klapes. “New Applications of Chemical 

Germicides: Hydrogen Peroxide,” Presentation to 

the American Society of Microbiology International 

Symposium on Chemical Germicides, 1990 (Abstract 20, page 19).

10. R. Gruhn, H.-J. Bässler, and U.J. Werner. Pharmazeutische Industrie, 1995, 57, 10.