## 3 Results  
Using 10% \(v/v\) treatment 1 under clean conditions, reductions of 2.9 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/mL after 50 min were recorded for _C. estertheticum_ spores, after which no colonies were detected, compared to the spore control group which averaged 4.6 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/mL for 60 min (\(p<0.0001\)) (Figure 1A). Susceptibility of spores to 10% \(v/v\) treatment 1 was also tested in 'dirty conditions' using 3 g L\({}^{-1}\) BSA, where spore counts were significantly reduced by 4.1 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/mL after 60 min (Figure 1B), in comparison to the control group (4.5 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/mL; \(p\) < 0.05). In SDW, _C. gasigenes_ spores were reduced by 3.2 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/mL after 60 min (Figure 1C), in comparison to the spore control group (4.5 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/mL) (\(p\) < 0.01). For treatment 1 in BSA, _C. gasigenes_ spores were reduced by 2.7 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/mL at 60 min, in comparison to the controls (4.3 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/mL; \(p\) < 0.05) (Figure 1D). Treatment 2 (5% \(v/v\)) in SDW gradually reduced _C. estertheticum_ spores from 3.2 (T0) to 2 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/mL (t = 60) (Figure 2A), compared to the controls (4.3 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/mL; \(p\) < 0.001). In BSA, the same treatment reduced _C. estertheticum_ by 2.1 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/mL from after 60 min (Figure 2C) compared to the controls (4.5 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/mL; \(p\) < 0.01). Using 5% \(v/v\) treatment 2 in SDW reduced _C. gasigenes_ by 1.8 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/mL with no growth observed at t = 60 min (Figure 2C). Statistically different results were obtained in BSA for the same treatment, where spores reduced by 2.7 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/mL (Figure 2D). Counts obtained for _C. gasigenes_ control remained significantly higher at 4.6 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/mL (\(p\) < 0.01). For 4% \(w/v\) treatment 3 in SDW, _C. estertheticum_ spores were reduced by 3.3 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/mL after 40 min after which no growth was observed compared to spore controls (3.6 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/mL; \(p\) < 0.01) (Figure 3A). For the same treatment in BSA, _C. estertheticum_ spores were reduced by 2.1 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/mL at 60 min compared to controls (4.3 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/mL; \(p\) < 0.01) (Figure 3B). For 4% \(w/v\) treatment 3 in SDW, counts were reduced by 1.9 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/mL with no growth observed after 40 min, in comparison to _C. gasigenes_ control (3.4 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/mL) (\(p\) < 0.01) (Figure 3C). The same treatment in BSA showed reductions of 2 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/mL by 60 min, compared to the control (4.4 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/mL) (\(p\) < 0.01) (Figure 3D). Figure 1: Sporicidal effect of 10% \(v/v\) treatment 1 at 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 and 60 min contact times for (**1A**) _C. estertheticum_ spores in SDW (\(\square\))/Control (\(\blacksquare\)); (**1B**) _C. estertheticum_ spores in BSA (\(\Circinus\))/Control (\(\bullet\)); (**1C**) _C. gasigenes_ spores in SDW (\(\Circinus\))/Control (\(\blacktriangle\)); (**1D**) _C. gasigenes_ spores in BSA (\(\Circinus\))/Control (\(\blacklozenge\)). In SDW, 2% \(v/v\) treatment 4 reduced \(C\). _esterheticum_ spore counts by 2.2 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/mL after 50 min with no further counts at 60 min, compared to controls (4.7 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/mL; \(p<0.0001\)) (Figure 4A). In BSA, lower reduction of 1.6 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/mL (Figure 4B) were obtained by 60 min compared to the controls (4.5 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/mL; \(p<0.0001\)). In SDW, 2% \(v/v\) treatment 4 showed a gradual reduction of \(C\). _gasigenes_ by 2.1 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/mL at T50 and no growth observed at T60, whereas concentrations as high as 4.5 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/mL were recorded in the control group (\(p<0.0001\)) (Figure 4C). In BSA, treatment with 2% \(v/v\) treatment 4 reduced spore counts by 1.7 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/mL, in comparison to the _C. gasigenes_ control group (4.8 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/mL) (\(p<0.01\)) (Figure 4D). The D-values for _C. estertheticum_ ranged from 12.7 to 39.4 min in SDW and from 18.5 to 33.3 min in BSA (Table 2). For all four sporicidal agents the D-value was significantly (\(p<0.05\)) lower in SDW.