Interscan's new Knowledge Base article should prove helpful in this regard

Back in 1984, Interscan Corporation introduced its air monitoring systems for ethylene oxide, a widely used low-temperature sterilant gas. The hazards of this chemical were being publicized, in light of OSHA's 29 CFR § 1910.1047 which had been published that same year. It was certainly not lost on hospital sterile processing departments that ethylene oxide (EO or EtO) had its own "CFR." And, as a result, air monitoring systems for EtO were deployed in most of these departments—at least the larger ones.

Then, in 1993, FDA 510(k) clearance was given to the first of the hydrogen peroxide based sterilizers, which boasted shorter cycle times and freedom from EtO, even if hydrogen peroxide has its own toxic properties. Still, the mood in the sterile processing departments was that by replacing EtO with hydrogen peroxide, they no longer had to worry about air monitoring for a sterilant gas.

In fact, it took a number of years before some of these departments installed hydrogen peroxide monitoring systems. One reason for this was the promulgation of studies such as this one, that documented leaks from hydrogen peroxide sterilizers.

Nonetheless, there are some holdouts with sterile processing departments that seem to be reluctant to do the monitoring, and argue that hydrogen peroxide does not have its own CFR. (Neither do hundreds of other regulated substances.) In this new Knowledge Base article, Interscan covers key legalities behind monitoring for regulated substances in the workplace, and hopes to clear up any confusion.

Interscan invites all inquiries for hydrogen peroxide gas detection.