What, on all medical devices? Obviously, as with all chemicals, the stronger they are, the more "damage" to the equipment (or at least vulnerable parts of it) is likely to occur. Surely there is no "magic bullet", and every decontamination method has its pros and cons?

Originally Posted By: Response to an article in Labnews.co.uk
Chlorine dioxide is much less corrosive than chlorine. However, as it is an oxidising agent, it will effect metals that are easily corroded like copper or brass. Medical and laboratory equipment is usually made of high-grade stainless steel which is not affected by the levels of chlorine dioxide that can be found in the laboratory disinfectants.

Sometimes (quite often, in my opinion), hot soapy water works very well. Or, failing that, bleach. On second thoughts, perhaps it's not expensive enough!

And lastly, what happens when a "super-bug" emerges to challenge the power of Tristel products (or any other)? Although it is claimed that chlorine dioxide (a broad-spectrum biocide) has the the advantage that bacteria, fungi and viruses do not build up a natural resistance to it. How can this be? Remember what happened with the over-(mis-)use of antibiotics?

"Only Tristel has mastered its power" (that is, that of chlorine dioxide). Not another gouge I hope! frown

If you don't inspect ... don't expect.