Compact, Automated, Inexpensive, and Field-Deployable Vacuum-Outlet Gas Chromatograph for Trace-Concentration Gas-Phase Organic Compounds.

The identification and quantification of gas-phase organic compounds, such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), frequently use gas chromatography (GC), which typically requires high-purity compressed gases. We have developed a new instrument for trace-concentration measurements of VOCs and intermediate-volatility compounds of up to 14 carbon atoms in a fully automated (computer-free), independent, low-cost, compact GC-based system for the quantitative analysis of complex mixtures without the need for compressed, high-purity gases or expensive detectors. Through adsorptive analyte preconcentration, vacuum GC, photoionization detectors, and need-based water-vapor control, we enable sensitive and selective measurements with picogram-level limits of detection (i.e., under 15 ppt in a 4 L sample for most compounds). We validate performance against a commercial pressurized GC, including resolving challenging isomers of similar volatility, such as ethylbenzene and  m/ p-xylene. We employ vacuum GC across the whole column with filtered air as a carrier gas, producing long-term system stability and performance over a wide range of analytes. Through theory and experiments, we present variations in analyte diffusivities in the mobile phase, analyte elution temperatures, optimal linear velocities, and separation-plate heights with vacuum GC in air at different pressures, and we optimize our instrument to exploit these differences. At 2-6 psia, the molecular diffusion coefficients are 6.4-2.1 times larger and the elution temperatures are 39-92 °C lower than with pressurized GC with helium (at 30 psig) depending on the molecular structure, and we find a wide range of optimal linear velocities (up to 60 cm s-1) that are faster with broader tolerances than with pressurized-N2 GC.

Practical toolkit for monitoring endoscope reprocessing effectiveness: Identification of viable bacteria on gastroscopes, colonoscopes, and bronchoscopes.

BACKGROUND: Experts have recommended microbiologic surveillance by external reference laboratories for certain flexible endoscopes. There is currently insufficient evidence on the feasibility and utility of cultures. Researchers evaluated a preassembled toolkit for collecting and processing samples from endoscopes. METHODS: A pilot study was performed in a large academic medical center. A toolkit was used to aseptically sample biopsy ports and suction/biopsy channels of 5 gastroscopes, 5 colonoscopes, and 5 bronchoscopes after full reprocessing. Blinded specimens were packaged and transported on icepacks to a reference laboratory that used standard methodologies for microbial cultures. RESULTS: The laboratory detected bacteria in samples from 60% of patient-ready endoscopes, including gram-positive and gram-negative species. Viable microbes (<10 CFU) were recovered from 2 gastroscopes, 3 colonoscopes, and 4 bronchoscopes. Stenotrophomonas maltophilia and Delftia acidovorans were recovered from all 3 endoscope types. Subsequent environmental testing detected S maltophilia in the reprocessing rinse water. CONCLUSIONS: A preassembled toolkit facilitated the aseptic collection of samples for culturing by a reference laboratory that detected viable microbes on fully reprocessed endoscopes. Speciation allowed identification of potential pathogens and a possible common contamination source, demonstrating that microbial cultures may have value even when colony counts are low.

Persistent contamination on colonoscopes and gastroscopes detected by biologic cultures and rapid indicators despite reprocessing performed in accordance with guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Pathogens have been transmitted via flexible endoscopes that were reportedly reprocessed in accordance with guidelines. METHODS: Researchers observed reprocessing activities to ensure guideline compliance in a large gastrointestinal endoscopy unit. Contamination was assessed immediately after bedside cleaning, manual cleaning, high-level disinfection, and overnight storage via visual inspection, aerobic cultures, and tests for adenosine triphosphate (ATP), protein, carbohydrate, and hemoglobin. RESULTS: All colonoscopes and gastroscopes were reprocessed in accordance with guidelines during the study. Researchers collected and tested samples during 60 encounters with 15 endoscopes. Viable microbes were recovered from bedside-cleaned (92%), manually cleaned (46%), high-level disinfected (64%), and stored (9%) endoscopes. Rapid indicator tests detected contamination (protein, carbohydrate, hemoglobin, or ATP) above benchmarks on bedside-cleaned (100%), manually cleaned (92%), high-level disinfected (73%), and stored (82%) endoscopes. Visible residue was never observed on endoscopes, but it was often seen on materials used to sample endoscopes. Seven endoscopes underwent additional reprocessing in response to positive rapid indicators. Control endoscope channels were free of biologic residue and viable microbes. CONCLUSION: Despite reprocessing in accordance with US guidelines, viable microbes and biologic debris persisted on clinically used gastrointestinal endoscopes, suggesting current reprocessing guidelines are not sufficient to ensure successful decontamination.