Field Evaluation of Whole Airliner 

Decontamination Technologies – 

Wide-Body Aircraft With Dual-Use 

Application for Railcars

William F. Gale

Hyacinth S. Gale

Air Transportation 

Center of Excellence for Airliner 

Cabin Environment Research

Auburn University, AL 36849

Jean Watson

Office of Aerospace Medicine

Federal Aviation Administration

Washington, DC 20591

February 2008

Final Report

DOT/FAA/AM-08/4

Office of Aerospace Medicine

Washington, DC 20591

OK-08-1517
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


Technical Report Documentation Page 

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

DOT/FAA/AM-08/4 

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date 

Field Evaluation of Whole Airliner Decontamination Technologies – February 2008 

Wide-Body Aircraft With Dual-Use Application for Railcars 6. Performing Organization Code 

 

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

Gale WF, Gale HS, Watson J 

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

FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute 

P.O. Box 25082 11. Contract or Grant No. 

Oklahoma City, OK 73125 

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

 

 

 

Air Transportation Center of 

Excellence for Airliner Cabin 

Environment Research 

Auburn University, AL 36849 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Aerospace Medicine 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

15. Supplemental Notes 

Work was accomplished under Public Law 108-76 

16. Abstract 

The outcome of a field evaluation of decontamination of a wide-body aircraft using AeroClave’s thermal 

decontamination system both as a stand-alone technology and as a means of delivering STERIS vaporized 

hydrogen peroxide (VHP®)* is discussed. The report is submitted in the context of a decontamination 

technology selection exercise, laboratory work conducted on the efficacy of thermal decontamination, and as a 

follow-on to a field evaluation performed previously on a McDonnell Douglas DC–9 aircraft. The thermal 

decontamination system appears to be capable of reproducing temperatures needed for an efficacious antiviral 

process. However, work will be required to improve the temperature control and humidity levels attainable. The 

thermal decontamination + VHP add-in combination was found to be sporicidal at numerous locations within 

the cabin. The impact of issues relating to the failure to deactivate Biological Indicators (BIs) in certain locations 

with limited peroxide penetration, condensation of peroxide within the cabin, and more generally, issues related 

to the presence of residual peroxide in the cabin after aeration need to be addressed. Serious weather-related 

disruptions and a limited budget, coupled with a tight schedule, precluded these concerns being addressed on 

this occasion. Overall, the field evaluation of both the stand-alone thermal decontamination system and the VHP 

add-in can be described as successful.

*VHP is a registered trademark of the STERIS Corporation, Mentor, OH. 

 

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement 

 

 

Thermal Decontamination, Vaporized Hydrogen Peroxide, 

Efficacy, Process Control, Technology Evaluation 

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 15 

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

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank Dr. Ronald Brown and Messrs Paul Gray and Steven Rohlfing, of AeroClave 

LLC, and Dr. James Thomas, of STERIS Corporation, for their help in mounting the demonstration in Oklahoma City. To ensure objectivity, STERIS and AeroClave took no part in the evaluation of the dem

The authors also express their thanks to Dr. Vipin Rastogi and Ms. Lalena Wallace, of the U

Army Edgewood Chemical Biological Center for visiting the demonstration site and for 

discussions on the evaluation methodology employe

The assistance of personnel at the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute, in particular Messrs K

Larcher and David Ruppel for their invaluable assistance with using the 747 Aircraft Enviro

Research Facility, is acknowledged with tha

The work described in this report was funded by the FAA’s Office of Aerospace Medicine

part of the Air Transportation Center of Excellence for Airliner Cabin Environment Rese

Although the FAA has sponsored this project, it neither endorses nor rejects the findings of 

research. The presentation of this information is in the interest of invoking technical

comment on the results and conclusions of the research.

ABBREVIATIONS

As used in this report, the following abbreviations/acronyms have the meanings indic

Abbreviation Meani

AERF. . . . . . . . . . . Aircraft Environment

APU. . .. . .. . .. . .Auxili

BIs. . . . . . . . . . . . .

CAMI. . .. . .. . .. Civil Aerosp

ECBC. . .. . .. . .. Edgewood Chemic

ECS. . .. . .. . .. . .Environmental co

OSHA. . .. . .. . .. Occupational Safety and 

PCA. . .. . .. . .. . .Prec

PEL. . . . . . . . . . . . .Permissible expo

RH. . .. . .. . 

TSI. . .. . .. . .. . .. Transpo

TWA. . . . . . . . . . . Time

VHP . . . . . . . . . . . Vaporized 

v

C

INTRODUCTION. 

METHOD. 

Objectives.

Methodology. 

Protocols. 

RESULTS. 

747 – Stand-Alone Thermal Decontamination System

747 – VHP Add-In. 

Railcar – Thermal and VHP Run.

DISCUSSION. 

747 – Stand-Alone Thermal Decontamination System

747 – VHP Add-In. 

Railcar – Thermal and VHP Run.

CONCLUSIONS. 

REFERENCES. 

Field EvaluationOf Whole Airliner Decontamin

Technologies – Wide-Body Aircraft W

Dual-Use Application for Rai

INTRODUCTION

This report describes a follow-on from an earlier evaluation of a thermal decontamination system, whi

used both as a stand-alone technology and as a means 

of delivering vaporized hydrogen peroxide (VHP) 

narrow-body aircraft. Whereas the earlier report (Gale

2007) focused on a field evaluation using a narrowbody, single-aisle, aircraft, the present report cons

the application of the same technology to a wide-bod

twin-aisle aircraft. This work employed the FAA’s Airc

Environmental Research Facility (AERF), a grounded B

ing 747 aircraft located at the Civil Aeromedical Inst

in Oklahoma City, OK. An attempt was also made t

apply the same technologies to a two-decker commuter

rail car belonging to the Transportation Safety Instit

and co-located with the 747.

METHOD

Objectives

747 – Stand-Alone Thermal Decontamination System

The aim was to demonstrate the ability of the syst

to heat the entire cabin to a temperature of 60oC, unde

conditions of controlled relative humidity (RH), without significantly over-shooting this temperatu

location, hold the entire cabin isothermal at 60oC for

arbitrary time without significant temperature fluctuations, and to cool back to room temperature rapidl

in a controlled fashio

747 – VHP Add-in

In this instance, the goal was to demonstrate the 

feasibility of using the stand-alone thermal decontamination system as a means of delivering VHP in an efficient 

fashion, without requiring bulky vaporizers or other 

heavy equipment within the cabin, and that the system is 

capable of delivering controlled quantities of VHP, such 

that sporicidal conditions can be achieved throughout 

the cabin. As such, the VHP tests were not intended to 

be definitive but to explore initial viability and establish 

parameters for more detailed tests in the future.

It is to be stressed that, unlike earlier work on a small

McDonnell Douglas DC-9 aircraft for which there wa

extensive prior setup, the work on the 747 was relative

exploratory. Furthermore, in the case of the railcar, th

was no more than an initial demonstration of cap

ity, not a formally evaluated test of decontaminati

performance.

Railcar – Thermal and VHP Runs

A single decontamination unit was employed to demonstrate both thermal and VHP decontamina

Methodology

The thermal decontamination system, as a stand- alon

technology, was deployed in its standard configuratio

Details of this may be found in the outcomes of the decontamination technology down select (Gale et al., 2

and in an earlier report on work on narrow-body aircra

(Gale, 2007). In summary, the thermal decontaminatio

system is designed to deliver heated or cooled air, un

feed-back control from a self contained unit housed o

a semi-trailer. Given the relatively large volume of 

747’s interior, two such units were employed, both 

which were controlled from a station set up adjacent t

the aircraft. The units were connected to the cabin 

flexible air delivery and return hoses. Custom door plu

connected to the inlet and outlet hoses were fabricate

on-site. In this configuration, the air inlets were at

emergency exit doors above the wing and the air outle

at the front and rear cabin doors. Air supplies and returns were located on both the port and starboard si

of the aircraft

It is important to note that the 747 aircraft used

the evaluation did not retain the original configur

of the environmental control system (ECS). Hence,

only the cabin interior and not the cargo bay or E

ducts were decontaminated. The AERF is equipped f

evacuation research and hence has a smoke eliminat

system. This was capped off before starting the presen

work, and so the cabin geometry is reasonably similar

that of an operational 747. The cabin of the AERF wa

equipped with almost a complete set of seats. Dumm

plywood fixtures with a stick-on plastic coating are u

by CAMI in place of the lavatories and galley

The thermal decontamination system in its ori

configuration did not include a humidification c

ity. Hence, on heating, the relative humidity in the

dropped quickly. Based on the results of an earlier stud

(Rudnick et al., 2006), which indicated a need to mai

a RH of > 35% at 60oC, the equipment manufacturer
opted to add a 100 kW steam-based humidification system, which was employed during the evaluation des

in this report. The output from the steam generator wa

fed into the first of the two semi-trailers used to decontaminate the 

In the case of the VHP add-in, a detailed descript

of the setup employed may be found elsewhere (Thomas, 

2007), and hence only the key points are discussed here

VHP was injected into the air delivery system from

external bank of two VHP generators located in the

second trailer.

It is important to note that the intended function

the thermal decontamination system changes dependi

on which mode this is employed 

In the stand-alone configuration, the thermal decontamination system is intended to deliver hot 

controlled humidity to achieve thermal decontamina

to eliminate viruses and then cool the aircraft back t

desired temperature and relative humidity so that peo

may re-enter the cabin. The thermal decontaminati

system may also have other applications, such as nonchemical disinsection, as was discussed in the tec

evaluation (Gale et al., 2006)

The thermal decontamination system, when used 

conjunction with the VHP add-in, produces environmental preconditioning prior to the injection of

involves reducing the RH to below 60% (ideally 5

or lower), delivery of VHP to the cabin, and aeration 

extract VHP from the cabin

Railcar – Thermal and VHP Run

Although the primary focus of the work reported

here was on wide-body aircraft, the opportunity w

taken to demonstrate decontamination of a two-decke

commuter railcar. In this case, a single decontamina

unit was employed to demonstrate both thermal and

VHP decontamination. The inlet and outlet hoses we

placed in the end doors of the railcar, using door plu

manufactured on site.

Protocols

The following protocols were established in advan

of the testing. As was noted above, work on the 747 was

exploratory and so the aim was simply to approach thes

conditions as closely as possible, rather than a “pass/fa

scenario for the technology

747 – Stand-Alone Thermal Decontamination System

The cabin of the 747 would be instrumented wi

relative humidity sensors (one in the front and one

the rear of the cabin) and 36 thermocouples, and data

were logged continuously

At least three sets of data were to be collected, one of 

which would be on the day of the Edgewood Chemica

Biological Center (ECBC) evaluation and meeting 

following criteria. The target cabin surface would be maintained at 60oC for at least two hours. The temper

at the air inlet would not exceed 65oC, and the targe

relative humidity would be 50%. The cargo area wou

be excluded from the evaluation.

747 – VHP Add-in

The cabin would be equipped with the same instrumentation used for the stand-alone thermal decontami

system. Additionally, six ATI hydrogen peroxide va

sensors for measuring the working concentration of t

VHP would be included

Thirty Apex 6 log G. Stearothermophilus biologi

indicators (BIs) would be placed throughout the cabi

Note: In the field work, chemical indicators (CIs) were colocated with the BIs so as to supplement the peroxide sensors, although this was not specified in the p

Peripheral sensors would be placed around the aircraft

including near the outlet used to flush the VHP, to demonstrate compliance with OSHA PEL and other relev

exposure limits. Handheld sensor(s) with manual da

recording would be used in lieu of suitably calibr

automated sensors, not available on-site. VHP concentrations would be monitored on entering the cabin 

each run using suitable instrumentat

A minimum of three runs would be performed, including one on the day of the formal evaluation,

observers from the FAA and ECBC present. 

All of the runs would be performed under the follow-

ing conditions: VHP concentration would be maint

between 125 – 200 ppm for at least two hours at all locations sampled. The VHP concentration would not b

allowed to exceed 500 ppm at any location to minim

the risk of condensation

VHP concentrations would be monitored on enteri

the cabin after each run to ensure that the reading d

not exceed 1 ppm for those runs in which aeration w

allowed to run to completion

In view of time constraints, the run during the E

(Rastogi, 2007) and FAA visit would be terminated a

– 5 ppm, while ensuring that the duration of exposu

for personnel harvesting the BIs was carefully monitore

so that no individual’s exposure would exceed the OS

1 ppm TWA PEL. In the case of all runs, except that 

carried out on the day of the evaluation, the monitor

described in the previous paragraph would be repeated 

detect any VHP out-gassing from porous media within 

cabin. Additional aeration would be employed as fo

necessary, and the measurements would be repeated. 
Railcar – Thermal and VHP Run

The monitoring procedures for both the thermal an

VHP decontamination runs would be similar to th

employed for the 747 but with a reduced number of

sensors. This would not be a formal evaluation, as ha

already been noted, but would be an initial demonstration of capab

RESULTS

747 – Stand-Alone Thermal Decontamination 

System

It proved possible to heat the majority of the 747 cab

to close to 60oC and hold fairly near to this temperatur

for an extended period with the use of two thermal decontamination units (Figure 1). However, in some

regions, it was not possible to hold at 60oC for 2 hours, 

stipulated in the protocol (Figure 2). Surface temperatur

in other locations (e.g. adjacent to the inlet) were fou

to exceed 65oC, with a maximum temperature of 71o

being observed where the incoming air stream imp

on the cabin (Figure 3). The two thermal decontaminat

units appeared to be well matched to the thermal mass of

the 747, whereas a single unit had a rather larger heati

capability than that required for a DC

An effort was made to sample the temperature at 

locations throughout the cabin, encompassing surfac

comprised of a wide range of materials and thermal masse

All temperatures specified are surface temperatures, not

air temperatures. Some run-to-run scatter was apparent

for runs conducted with identical control parameter

Using the 100 kW steam generator, it was not foun

possible to bring the cabin RH to above 20% (Figu

4 and 5). 

747 – VHP Add-In

The combined system appeared to be capable of

controlling the VHP concentration in the 747’s cab

based on the output from 8 hydrogen peroxide sensors

(Thomas, 2007). It was possible to maintain an avera

cabin hydrogen peroxide concentration of around 1

ppm under non-condensing conditions, which should

sufficient to produce a sporicidal action (concentrat

above ~ 80 ppm are usually considered sporicidal). T

hydrogen peroxide concentration measured adjacent t

the inlet did not exceed 275 ppm, and hence there doe

not appear to be a risk of macroscopic condensation 

the peroxide (and localized condensation would requ

pockets of high humidity). However, some condens

peroxide was apparent in the return air cabinet of 

thermal decontamination system’s air handler and 

weather-induced breaches to the temporary wooden

door plugs. 

In a few cases, the 6 log G. Stearothermophilus biological indicators (BIs) placed throughout the cabin d

achieve complete kill. These BIs were placed in locati

where peroxide access proved difficult to achieve (see Gal

2007 for a note on the limitations of the label claims m

by STERIS with respect to occluded spaces). The only cases

of extensive kill failures in large portions of the cabin

due to weather-generated equipment failures that cause

condensation of the peroxide (Thomas, 2007). Table 1 summarizes the data obtained from the BIs. As in earlier

on the DC-9, some issues were encountered with release o

peroxide trapped in seat fabrics, etc. Optimization o

aeration cycle seemed to help significantly in addressing

problem, although this still remains an issue. This wo

described in detail in another report (see Thomas, 200

Railcar – Thermal and VHP Run

Although not formally evaluated, initial work on t

railcar indicated that it is possible to reach the tar

environmental conditions for both thermal and VHP decontamination. The absence of absorbent surfaces 

the railcar made the removal of VHP during post-decontamination aeration much less challenging than wa

case for the 747. A two-hour exposure at an average 250 

ppm VHP concentration deactivated all BIs placed in t

rail car. Table 2 shows the kill results from the BI

DISCUSSION

747 – Stand-Alone Thermal Decontamination 

System

As already noted, the primary focus of the work reported was on determining the feasibility of scaling

decontamination from the earlier work on the DC-9 to t

747, rather than on optimization of the decontamina

process itself. Hence, the issues that were not addresse

in the DC-9 work remain (Gale, 2007). In the interes

of brevity, they will not be repeated here

Notwithstanding the modifications made to the 7

the work performed on the AERF can be regarded as a 

reasonable analogue for decontamination of an actua

airliner cabin (minus the cargo area and ECS ducts

that the thermal mass should still be fairly similar

an actual wide-body aircraft, and most of the origi

materials of construction remained in pla

Most of the cabin was efficiently heated, without reso

to an air distribution system within the cabin. Ho

one location, adjacent to one of the cabin service are

(galleys and lavatories), was found to have insufficie

airflow, so an extension trunk was used to deliver air

this location (Thomas, 2007). It is possible that, 

further optimization of the air delivery system, the extension trunk could be eli
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

Time (seconds)

Temperature (°C)

Run A

Run B

Run C

Figure 1. Profile from an armrest towards the rear of the cabin 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

Time (seconds)

Temperature (°C)

Run A

Run B

Run C

Figure 2. Profile from an armrest towards the front of the cabin 
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

Time (seconds)

Temperature (°C)

Run A

Run B

Run C

Figure 3. Profile from an overhead area adjacent to inlet 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

Time (seconds)

Relative Humidity (%)

Run A

Run B

Run C

Figure 4. Relative humidity profile from the rear of the cabin 
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

Time (seconds)

Relative Humidity (%)

Run A

Run B

Run C

Figure 5. Relative humidity profile from the front of the cabin 
Table 1. Biological Indicator Results for 747 (Provided by Jim Thomas, STERIS 

Corporation) 

Record Run 1 Record Run 2 Record Run 3 

BI Location 48 hr 7 day 48 hr 7 day 48 hr 7 day

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 - - + + - - 

+ Control + + + + + + 

+ Control + + + + + + 

+ Control + + + + + + 

+ Control + + + + + + 
Table 2. Biological Indicator Results for 

Rail Car (Provided by Jim Thomas, 

STERIS Corporation) 

BI Location 48 hr 7 day

1 - - 

2 - - 

3 - - 

4 - - 

+ Control + + 

+ Control + + 

+ Control + + 

Cabin temperature on multiple cabin surfaces exceed

the desired 60oC. This was due to one of the two uni

having to be operated at 65oC and the second at 85oC,

due to on-site power limitations. It must be noted t

the present trials were conducted on a very tight schedul

and budget. It is likely that given a longer lead time, m

proving runs, and additional resources, the temperatu

control issues can be addressed.

Failure to reach a humidity of > 30% RH for ra

antiviral efficacy (Rudnick et al., 2006) was disapp

ing. However, this does not appear to be a fundamenta

problem with the system but a matter of exceeding th

capacity of the existing steam generator to humidi

wide-body aircraft. This is an issue that can be addre

easily in the future

Apart from the above, no significant issues were apparent that had not already manifested themselves in

DC-9 work. Indeed, the results are generally encourag-

ing with respect to the feasibility of scaling up th

decontamination to wide-body aircra

747 – VHP Add-In

As in the case of thermal decontamination, issues identified in the DC-9 work persisted with the 747. 

progress does seem to have been made with respect to

improving the efficiency of aeration (Thomas, 200

Nonetheless, in our opinion, this is an issue that still

to be addressed and one with scope for further improvement through optimization of the aeration s

It was noted in the ECBC report (Rastogi, 2007) tha

there was evidence, post test, of the presence of residua

peroxide at a significant, but unquantified, concentrat

Unfortunately, it has not yet proved possible, after th

fact, to identify exactly when and where any peroxi

hotspot occurred. During break-down of the system

after the experiments, one of the authors did noti

some residual peroxide in the supply lines, but it is

to see how this would have been apparent during th

demonstration itself

The work conducted on the 747 is generally encourag

ing in that scale-up was achieved. However, issues rela

to residual peroxide remaining after aeration mus

addressed in any future work

Railcar – Thermal and VHP Run

Although not formally evaluated, no problems were 

encountered during the railcar decontamination demonstration, and this appears to be a successful

demonstration of a capability for decontaminating 

vehicles

CONCLUSIONS

As a result of the field evaluation of the stand-alone

thermal decontamination system and the VHP add-i

scaled up for application to a wide-body aircraft, 

following conclusions have been draw

The thermal decontamination system appears to b

capable of reproducing in the field the temperatures foun

in an earlier study to be needed for an efficacious antiv

process (Rudnick et al., 2006). Further work will need t

be done to improve the temperature control to elimina

overheating of cabin surfaces. Reaching a relative hum

> 20% was found to be a problem, but this appears to

be easily addressable with the addition of either a la

capacity or second steam generator.

The thermal decontamination + VHP add-in combination was found to be sporicidal at numerous lo

within the cabin. The impact of issues relating to the f

to deactivate BIs in certain locations with limited p

penetration will need to be addressed. Condensation 

peroxide within the cabin will also need to be addre

in future work on a wide-body aircraft. More generall

issues related to the presence of residual peroxide in 

cabin after aeration need to be more fully addressed

This evaluation of the 747 was conducted on a ver

limited budget and a tight schedule. Furthermore, the

were weather-related disruptions that severely imped

set up and operation of the equipment. Given more t

and resources, it is envisaged that most of the issues

concern can be addressed. 

Although this was not a formal evaluation, the ini

outcome from the railcar decontamination demonstrat

appears to be promisin
REFERENCES

Gale, W.F., Prorok, B.C., Gale, H.S., Sofyan, N.I., Barbaree, J.M.,and Neely, W.C. (2006). Report on the 

Selection of Decontamination Technologies for Further 

Evaluation or Implementation, Auburn University

Auburn, AL.

Gale, W.F. (2007). Report on Field Evaluation of Whole 

Airliner Decontamination Technologies, Auburn 

University, Auburn, A

Rastogi, V.K. (2007). Report on ECBC Staff Visit to CAMI

(Civil Aerospace Medical Institute), Oklahoma City 

Airport – Decontamination of a Boeing 747 Air Cabin 

Interior, US Army – ECBC.

Rudnick, S. and Spengler, J. (2006). Report on the Thermal

Inactivation of Vaccinia Viruses on Surfaces, Department of Environmental Health, Harvard School of

Public, Boston, MA

Thomas, J.A. (2007), Decontamination Feasibility Tests 

on a Boeing 747 Aircraft Passenger Cabin and Commuter Train Car With STERIS’ Vaporized Hydrogen 

Peroxide (VHP®) Technology and an AeroClave, 

LLC High Velocity Air Handling System, STERIS 

Corporation, Mentor, OH.