Summary of Third Party Testing of ChemDAQ Steri-Trac Peracetic Acid Monitor

323 views
0 Likes
0 0
This document summarizes the findings from two reports of testing performed by a major automatic endoscope reprocessor manufacturer on the ChemDAQ peracetic acid (PAA)
Steri-Trac monitor. The third party manufacturer found that the Steri-Trac monitor was very selective to PAA, had a fast response time and linear response to PAA and the overall accuracy of the response was within acceptable limits.

Share on Social Networks

Share Link

Use permanent link to share in social media

Share with a friend

Please login to send this document by email!

Embed in your website

Select page to start with

1. Page 1 of 1 SL-118-A-0.00 \\Chemdaq-server2\user data2 e\ Controlled Documents\SL-118-A-0.00 Summary ofThird Party Testing of ChemDAQ Steri-Trac Peracetic Acid Monitor Feb 2015.doc Summary of Third Party Test ing of ChemDAQ Steri-Trac ® Peracetic Acid Monitor February 2015 Background This document summarizes the findings from two reports of testing performed by a major automatic endoscope reprocessor manufactur er on the ChemDAQ peracetic acid (PAA) Steri-Trac monitor between October and December 2014. Accuracy and Linearity To test the accuracy of the Steri-Trac mon itor, a test gas containing PAA was generated by bubbling air through solutions of PAA and me asuring the PAA in the gas stream using the spectroscopic method of Effkeman et al 1 based on the reaction of PAA with 2,2'- azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoli ne-6-sulphonic acid) to form a dark green oxidation product. There was excellent linearity between the Steri- Trac and the spectroscopic method (R 2 = 0.9995), but PAA concentrations measured by the spectroscopic method were about 10% less than the Steri-Trac. A 10% deviation in calibration is well within acceptable margins. There will be errors in calibration of the ChemDAQ monitor, in the spectroscopic procedure and errors due to experimental differences in how the gas is applied to the monitor. The tests were performed about four months after the monito r’s sensor was last calibrated. This overall error of about 10% is well below the NI OSH specification for gas monitoring of < 25% 95% of the time. 2 Response Time A 10 ppm PAA test gas was generated by bubbling air th rough PAA solution (~0.05% PAA). The monitor reached th e high alarm (9.00 ppm PAA) in less than 15 seconds. Note: 9 ppm is outside the specified range for this sensor, (6 ppm). Selectivity The monitor responded to PAA vapor but did not respond when tested with only water vapor, acetic acid vapor and hydr ogen peroxide vapor, showing excellent selectivity to PAA. Summary The third party manufacturer f ound that the Steri-Trac monitor was very selective to PAA, had a fast response time and linear response to PAA and the overall accuracy of the response was within acceptable limits. 1 Effkemann S1, Brødsgaard S, Mortensen P, Linde SA, Karst U., Fresenius J. anal. Chem (2000), 366, 361-4 2 http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/doc s/95-117/pdfs/95-117.pdf

Views

  • 323 Total Views
  • 255 Website Views
  • 68 Embedded Views

Actions

  • 0 Social Shares
  • 0 Likes
  • 0 Dislikes
  • 0 Comments

Share count

  • 0 Facebook
  • 0 Twitter
  • 0 LinkedIn
  • 0 Google+