• Author
• Aug 20, 2025
• Reading Time: 00:00 min

Ethylene Oxide (EtO) vs. Chlorine Dioxide Gas as Sterilants in Healthcare

Sterilization of medical instruments and devices (often packaged in sterilization reels or sterilization pouches) is critical to patient safety in the healthcare industry. Ethylene Oxide (EtO) gas has long been a dominant method for sterilizing medical devices – in fact, roughly half of all medical devices in the U.S. are sterilized with EtO. However, EtO’s use has come under increasing scrutiny due to health and environmental concerns. This has spurred interest in alternatives like Chlorine Dioxide (ClO₂) gas, a newer sterilant gaining attention for its effectiveness and safety profile. In this article, we compare EtO and ClO₂ as sterilants, including how they work, their pros and cons, and considerations for medical packaging materials.

Ethylene Oxide (EtO) Gas Sterilization in Healthcare

How EtO Sterilization Works: EtO is a potent alkylating agent that kills bacteria, viruses, and spores by disrupting their DNA. It’s used in sealed chambers at low temperatures (typically ~37–55°C) and requires added humidity for effectiveness. EtO’s biggest advantage is its penetration ability. It can sterilize complex devices and instruments even when they’re sealed inside multi-layer packaging. This means medical tools can be enclosed in sterilization reels or pouches and boxed, yet EtO gas will still permeate through the packaging to achieve sterility. After sterilization, an aeration phase is required to allow absorbed EtO to dissipate from the products and packaging.

Pros of EtO Sterilization:

• Highly Penetrative: EtO is a true gas that diffuses through porous materials and reaches even complex device geometries. It can sterilize instruments sealed in packaging and even inside shipping cartons, making it extremely versatile for sterile supply chains.
• Material Compatibility: EtO is gentle on most materials. Even moisture-sensitive or heat-sensitive medical devices generally tolerate EtO sterilization since it operates at relatively low temperatures. It’s compatible with a wide range of plastics, metals, and electronics without causing damage or melting.
• Large Load Capacity: EtO sterilizers can process large batches of medical devices at once. Entire pallets of packaged products can be sterilized in one cycle, improving efficiency for high-volume manufacturing or central supply operations. This bulk processing capability has made EtO a convenient choice for industry.

Cons of EtO Sterilization:

• Health & Environmental Risks: EtO is a known human carcinogen, and chronic exposure is linked to increased cancer risk. Emissions from EtO sterilization facilities pose hazards to workers and nearby communities, prompting stricter EPA regulations and even facility closures. These safety concerns are a major drawback of EtO.
• Lengthy Cycle & Aeration Time: EtO sterilization is relatively slow. A typical sterilization cycle can last several hours, and critically, products often require extensive post-sterilization aeration. Depending on the device and packaging, aeration can take anywhere from a few hours to multiple days (even up to two weeks in some cases) to reduce toxic residues to safe levels. This long turnaround time is inefficient compared to other methods.
• Flammability and Explosiveness: EtO gas is highly flammable and explosive in certain concentrations, necessitating rigorous controls. Facilities must have explosion-proof equipment and ventilation systems to handle EtO safely. This adds complexity and cost to using EtO, and any leaks can be dangerous.
• Regulatory Pressure: With EtO’s environmental and safety issues, its future is uncertain. Regulators are pushing for reduced EtO emissions and encouraging alternatives, meaning healthcare providers and manufacturers may eventually need to transition away from EtO where possible.

Despite these cons, EtO remains widely used because it’s well-established with clear industry standards (ISO 11135) and decades of validation data. The medical device industry has been slow to move away from EtO, in part because “if it works, they’re fine with keeping it”. However, the drawbacks of EtO have opened the door for other sterilants like Chlorine Dioxide.

Chlorine Dioxide (ClO₂) Gas Sterilization in Healthcare

How ClO₂ Sterilization Works: Chlorine Dioxide gas is an oxidizing agent that sterilizes by oxidizing microbial cell components. It has been used as a sterilant in various industries since the 1980s, but only minimal use in healthcare until recently. ClO₂ is generated on-site (as it’s unstable to store) and used at room temperature in an enclosed chamber. Like EtO, ClO₂ is a true gas that distributes uniformly and penetrates packaging and device crevices effectively. Sterilization cycles are run at ambient temperature (~20–25°C) and normal atmospheric pressure without the need for added heat. After a ClO₂ exposure period, any residual gas breaks down into benign salts (chlorides, chlorites, chlorates) which are low in toxicity. A short aeration within the chamber completes the cycle, but unlike EtO, ClO₂ does not leave long-lasting toxic residues, so devices can be handled immediately after sterilization.

Pros of ClO₂ Sterilization:

• Fast, Low-Temperature Cycles: ClO₂ offers much faster turnaround than EtO. A complete cycle (including pre-conditioning and aeration) typically takes about 4–8 hours, significantly shorter than EtO’s total cycle + aeration time. Sterilization occurs at room temperature, which is a huge advantage for heat-sensitive products like electronics, batteries, or biologics that might be damaged by the ~50°C heat or humidity used in EtO cycles.
• No Toxic Residuals: ClO₂ is used at concentrations that are non-carcinogenic, non-flammable, and non-explosive. It does not produce harmful residues that cling to products. Residual ClO₂ gas breaks down into non-toxic byproducts, so sterilized packages don’t need prolonged aeration and can be released or used immediately. This improves throughput and safety for workers handling the devices.
• Effective Penetration: As a true gas at room temperature, ClO₂ diffuses through complex geometries and throughout porous packaging almost as well as EtO. It can penetrate medical device packaging (Tyvek®, paper, etc.) and sterilize contents through oxidation at low concentrations. ClO₂’s ability to disperse uniformly means it can achieve the same sterility assurance level (10^−6 SAL by overkill validation) as EtO for properly validated cycles.
• Material and Packaging Compatibility: ClO₂ is broadly compatible with common materials used in medical devices and their packaging. It does not significantly degrade metals (stainless steel, aluminum), plastics, or electronics. Importantly for packaging, ClO₂ is compatible with cellulosic materials and polymers often used in sterilization reels and pouches. It doesn’t require special packaging—standard breathable sterilization packaging can be used, similar to EtO processes.
• Safer Handling and Environmentally Friendly: Because ClO₂ is not toxic or carcinogenic at use concentrations, it poses fewer risks to personnel and the environment. There are no explosive hazards, and any emissions can be readily neutralized (ClO₂ breaks down into harmless byproducts) This makes it a more sustainable option amid growing environmental regulations.

Cons of ClO₂ Sterilization:

• Limited Adoption and Scale: Unlike EtO, which has a well-established global infrastructure, ClO₂ sterilization is still emerging. It currently lacks a dedicated ISO standard (it falls under the general ISO 14937 for novel processes). Regulatory adoption can be a hurdle, as companies must justify and validate ClO₂ sterilization on their own. Additionally, while ClO₂ chambers exist in various sizes (even multi-pallet systems), the installed base is small. ClO₂ is “not yet scaled to meet” the high volume demand of the industry that EtO presently serves. In practice, ClO₂ is mostly used by contract sterilizers or in pilot programs; it’s not widely available at all hospitals or manufacturers yet.
• Material Sensitivity Issues: Although generally compatible, ClO₂ can cause cosmetic changes in certain materials. Notably, some grades of polycarbonate and silicone may undergo slight yellowing after repeated ClO₂ exposure. This discoloration doesn’t necessarily indicate a loss of function, but it is a consideration for device designers. Also, items like paper surgical drapes or gowns (which are highly absorbent) may be less ideal for ClO₂ gas processes, as those materials tend to absorb gas or moisture; such items often fare better with radiation sterilization.
• Operational and Chemical Considerations: ClO₂ must be generated on-site for each use (usually by mixing precursor chemicals), requiring reliable generation equipment. The process involves careful monitoring of gas concentration (ClO₂ has a yellow-green color that can be tracked in real time). While not as dangerous as EtO, ClO₂ gas is still a respiratory irritant at high concentrations, so leaks must be avoided and chambers must be airtight. Staff need training to handle ClO₂ systems and byproducts safely (even if the risk profile is far lower than EtO’s).

EtO vs. ClO₂ – Head-to-Head Comparison

Both EtO and ClO₂ are low-temperature sterilants capable of achieving high levels of sterility assurance, and both can sterilize devices in their final packaging. However, there are clear differences in their performance and safety:

• Effectiveness & Penetration:Both gases penetrate porous packaging and complex devices effectively. EtO has a long track record of reliably sterilizing items sealed in packaging (including items in sterilization reels or foil overwraps). ClO₂ has shown comparable penetrative ability, able to permeate medical packaging and sterilize contents at room temperature. In terms of microbial kill, each can reach 10^−6 SAL with proper validation, using biological indicators and overkill methods. There is no significant difference in sterilization efficacy when cycles are properly run; both are lethal to a broad spectrum of pathogens.
• Cycle Time: ClO₂ generally provides faster turnaround. A ClO₂ cycle including conditioning and aeration might be completed within half a day (4–8 hours), whereas EtO often requires a full day or more when considering lengthy post-sterilization aeration. EtO’s need for extensive outgassing of toxic ethylene oxide prolongs the total time before devices can be released for use or shipping. ClO₂’s quick aeration (with residuals below detectable levels on products and packaging) means sterilized packages can be handled almost immediately, which is a big advantage for throughput.
• Safety and Environmental Impact: This is where ClO₂ shines in comparison. EtO’s carcinogenic and explosive nature makes it hazardous; facilities using EtO must manage emissions to protect workers and communities. ClO₂, on the other hand, is not carcinogenic and is used at non-explosive concentrations. While any sterilant requires precautions, ClO₂’s byproducts are non-toxic salts, and it doesn’t impose the same environmental burden. From an environmental health and safety standpoint, ClO₂ is a cleaner technology, aligning with industry efforts to reduce toxic chemical use. Regulatory agencies (FDA, EPA) are actively encouraging exploration of sterilants like ClO₂ to mitigate the “EtO problem”.
• Material & Packaging Compatibility: Both gases are compatible with typical medical packaging materials like Tyvek® and medical-grade paper used in sterilization pouches and reels. These packaging materials are designed to let gas in while keeping microbes out, enabling both EtO and ClO₂ to sterilize sealed contents effectively. EtO has the edge of decades of known compatibility data with various polymers, adhesives, and device materials. ClO₂’s compatibility record is growing, and so far it appears to work with most materials as well, aside from the minor issues like polycarbonate yellowing. Neither method causes significant mechanical degradation to packaging; in fact, both sterilants require breathable packaging for the gas to penetrate and later vent out. (Notably, some newer alternatives like nitrogen dioxide cannot sterilize through paper packaging—but EtO and ClO₂ both can, making them suitable for terminally sterilizing pre-packaged devices.)
• Regulatory and Practical Considerations: EtO sterilization processes are governed by well-defined standards and guidances, and most hospitals and device manufacturers are already set up for EtO or use outside contract sterilization services. ClO₂, being newer to healthcare, may require more upfront work to validate and regulatory approval on a case-by-case basis. Companies considering ClO₂ need to ensure their process meets FDA expectations under existing guidelines (e.g. ISO 14937). Practically, EtO sterilizers are widely available through large contract sterilizers around the world, whereas ClO₂ services are currently offered by a smaller number of providers. However, ClO₂ can be brought in-house with modular chambers, which could be beneficial for startups or smaller manufacturers that can’t meet EtO minimum batch volumes. Over time, if adoption increases and standards catch up, ClO₂ could become as convenient to implement as EtO.

Packaging Considerations: Sterilization Reels & Pouches

From a medical packaging perspective, both EtO and ClO₂ sterilization require using packaging that allows gas penetration. Common sterilization reels and pouches are made of a combination of medical-grade paper or Tyvek® (a porous plastic membrane) and a transparent polymer film. This design lets the sterilant gas enter and exit while maintaining a microbial barrier. Both EtO and ClO₂ are fully compatible with such packaging materials. In practice:

• Integrity and Seal Strength: The sterilization process should not compromise the seals of reels or pouches. EtO’s moderate humidity and temperature have minimal impact on packaging seals when materials are chosen correctly. ClO₂’s room-temperature process is even gentler on packaging seals, as it avoids heat-induced stresses. Both gases require that pouches/reels are sealed properly in advance; neither will seal a package (they only sterilize contents). High-quality reels and pouches are engineered to withstand EtO and similar processes without rupture or loss of sterility.
• Penetration and Aeration: Because both EtO and ClO₂ can permeate the porous side of pouches, they ensure that even the inside of a sealed pouch is sterilized. After exposure, EtO gas trapped in the pouch material or the device must diffuse out during aeration. Tyvek and paper allow EtO to outgas over time. With ClO₂, residual gas dissipates quickly; as noted, packages sterilized with ClO₂ can be handled almost immediately since the gas doesn’t linger. This means a pallet of devices in pouches could potentially move to shipping sooner with ClO₂ than with EtO.
• Moisture and Chemical Interaction: EtO sterilization typically involves pre-humidification (e.g. 50% RH) to help kill spores, but excessive moisture can also react with EtO to form ethylene glycol or other byproducts, which is one reason aeration is critical. Packaging materials like paper might absorb some moisture, but Tyvek maintains strength even if slightly damp. ClO₂ doesn’t require added humidity; it is effective in dry conditions, which can simplify processing of packaged goods (no need to ensure a moisture level in the load). Neither EtO nor ClO₂ significantly weaken Tyvek or medical paper when used properly – both gases have been successfully used with standard sterilization packaging in industry.

In summary, healthcare packaging such as sterilization reels and pouches are compatible with both EtO and ClO₂ sterilization methods. The choice of sterilant is more about the device and process needs (and regulatory context) than about the packaging, since both gases will reliably penetrate these sterile barrier systems and sterilize the contents without damaging the packaging material.

Conclusion

Choosing between EtO and ClO₂: The decision to use Ethylene Oxide or Chlorine Dioxide as a sterilant in the healthcare setting involves weighing tradition and familiarity against innovation and safety. EtO gas has the benefit of legacy – decades of use, established protocols, and the capacity to handle huge volumes of devices. It remains indispensable for many products today despite its drawbacks. Chlorine Dioxide gas, by contrast, offers a compelling improvement in safety and speed: it provides effective sterilization without toxic emissions or lengthy aeration, and it operates at room temperature which broadens the range of treatable products. For the medical packaging industry, both gases work with existing sterile packaging formats like reels and pouches, ensuring that sterility can be achieved and maintained until point of use.

Going forward, regulatory pressures and public health concerns are driving the healthcare industry to reduce reliance on EtO. ClO₂ is emerging as one viable alternative, among others, to fill this gap. The pros and cons summarized above indicate that no single sterilization method is perfect: EtO excels in penetration and scalability but falters in safety, while ClO₂ excels in safety and speed but needs broader adoption and standards. Many experts foresee a diversified approach to sterilization – with EtO, ClO₂, and other methods each playing a role. Healthcare manufacturers and packaging providers should stay informed about these technologies. By understanding the capabilities and limitations of EtO vs ClO₂ gas sterilization, the industry can make informed choices that ensure patient safety, compliance, and efficiency in the supply of sterile medical products.