Traditional vs. Low-Cost Sterilization Methods
- David Bell
- Dec 22, 2025
- 10 min read
Sterilisation is vital for cultivated meat production, but high costs and infrastructure needs often limit its accessibility in resource-limited settings. This article compares established methods like steam sterilisation with affordable alternatives to address these challenges. Here’s a quick breakdown:
Steam sterilisation (autoclaving): Reliable, widely used, but requires significant infrastructure, maintenance, and consistent electricity.
In-container heating: Effective for liquids but energy-intensive and operationally complex.
Low-cost options: Include anolyte water, lactic/acetic acid solutions, and portable sterilisation units. These are cheaper, easier to implement, and suitable for areas with limited resources, though they may not achieve the same sterility levels.
Quick Comparison
Feature | Steam Sterilisation | Low-Cost Alternatives |
Effectiveness | Highly reliable, sporicidal | Inconsistent, high-level disinfection |
Infrastructure Needs | High (electricity, distilled water) | Minimal |
Cost | Expensive upfront | Affordable (£48–£400) |
Suitability for Developing Areas | Limited by resources | More accessible |
While steam sterilisation remains the gold standard, low-cost methods offer practical solutions for areas with limited resources, making cultivated meat production more feasible globally.
Established Sterilisation Methods
In industrial settings, two well-known moist-heat techniques - autoclaving and in-container heating - are commonly used to eliminate microorganisms. These methods work by denaturing proteins and enzymes, effectively destroying harmful pathogens [5]. According to the CDC:
While these methods are reliable, their resource-intensive nature highlights the need for exploring more cost-effective alternatives.
Autoclaving
Autoclaving relies on carefully controlled steam, pressure, temperature, and time to achieve sterilisation [5]. The process requires dry saturated steam with a dryness fraction of at least 97% for optimal results [5]. There are two main types of autoclaves:
Gravity displacement sterilisers: These work by expelling air as steam enters. For wrapped supplies, they typically require 30 minutes at 121°C.
Prevacuum sterilisers: These use a vacuum pump to remove air before introducing steam, allowing sterilisation in just 4 minutes at 132°C. This design ensures rapid steam penetration, making it ideal for porous loads like surgical packs, whereas gravity displacement is better suited for nonporous items and liquids.
Industrial autoclaves often come with a jacketed design, which can take up to an hour to preheat before the first cycle [6]. However, the process can face challenges. Poor water quality, for example, may introduce particulates into the steam, causing damage to heating coils and steam traps, leading to downtime and costly repairs. As mechanical engineer Scott Mechler explains:
"Particulates in steam and poor water quality can easily damage an autoclave, resulting in system downtime, poor processing performance and expensive repairs." [6]
In-Container Heating
In-container heating is a method used to sterilise sealed liquids and materials through carefully controlled liquid cycles. These cycles are designed to prevent boil-over by gradually releasing pressure, allowing the liquid to cool safely within its container [6]. This contrasts with gravity cycles, which quickly exhaust pressure and are better suited for solid items like metal instruments.
For in-container heating, containers must remain unsealed during sterilisation. Lids should either be loosened or replaced with steam-penetrable bungs to avoid dangerous pressure build-up [6]. However, this approach requires longer cycles and constant monitoring, which significantly increases energy consumption and operational complexity. These factors make in-container heating less accessible in regions with limited resources.
Although these methods are highly dependable, their steep costs, high energy demands, and maintenance requirements pose substantial barriers, particularly for developing nations aiming to implement cultivated meat production technologies.
Affordable Sterilisation Options
When it comes to sterilisation, low-cost alternatives provide effective microbial control without the need for the extensive infrastructure required by traditional autoclaving methods. These approaches rely on easily accessible materials and minimal equipment, making them particularly suitable for regions with limited electricity and maintenance capabilities. By addressing the limitations of conventional sterilisation methods, they open up possibilities for broader use in resource-limited settings.
Anolyte water is one such practical solution. It is generated on-site through the electrolysis of a salt solution [11]. This process creates a disinfectant with hypochlorite concentrations exceeding 650–675 parts per million of active free chlorine, effectively neutralising pathogens like Clostridium difficile spores, Helicobacter pylori, and Mycobacterium species [9][10]. The ability to produce this disinfectant locally using just salt, water, and electricity is a game-changer for areas with unreliable supply chains [3][11]. Studies have also shown its effectiveness against the African Swine Fever Virus, making it a potential option for biosecurity in small-scale farming [11]. However, it’s important to note that anolyte water can corrode metal instruments, so careful consideration of materials is necessary [10].
Lactic acid sprays and acetic acid solutions offer even simpler options for small-scale use [11]. These organic acids are inexpensive, widely available, and require no specialised equipment. Acetic acid, in particular, is an accessible choice for facilities unable to implement more complex systems [11]. While these methods might not achieve the same sterility levels as steam sterilisation, they are valuable tools for antimicrobial control when combined with other biosecurity practices [11].
Portable sterilisation units using liquid nitrogen dioxide ampoules are another innovative solution, especially in areas without reliable electricity. These units are expected to cost under £400, with consumables for each cycle priced at less than £4 [8]. This makes them an important option for the 1.2 billion people worldwide who lack dependable access to electricity [8].
The affordability of these methods varies widely. For instance, an ozone-based system can cost around £48, while a vapourised hydrogen peroxide system might cost approximately £240 - significantly less than the £800,000 required for industrial-scale versions [7]. Additionally, many of these systems can be constructed using locally sourced materials by engineering students or hobbyists, further reducing costs and increasing accessibility [7]. These innovations align with the Cultivarian vision of making ethical and accessible protein production achievable on a global scale.
Comparison of Established and Affordable Methods
Choosing the right sterilisation method is crucial for producing cultivated meat, especially in areas with limited resources. When comparing steam sterilisation to more affordable chemical methods, the differences in effectiveness, infrastructure needs, and reliability are striking. Steam sterilisation is widely considered the most reliable option. The CDC emphasises this clearly:
Of all the methods available for sterilization, moist heat in the form of saturated steam under pressure is the most widely used and the most dependable [5].
On the other hand, chemical methods, such as anolyte water and acid solutions, fall short in several ways. They struggle to achieve the same level of sterility and are less effective at penetrating tight spaces like narrow lumens or mated surfaces [1].
Items sterilised using an autoclave can be wrapped to maintain sterility during storage. In contrast, items treated with liquid chemicals often need rinsing with non-sterile water, which introduces a risk of re-contamination [1]. Verification also sets steam sterilisation apart - it uses biological indicators like Geobacillus stearothermophilus spores to ensure sterility. Chemical methods, however, generally lack such robust verification tools [5][1].
Feature | Steam Sterilisation (Traditional) | Liquid Chemicals/Anolyte (Affordable) |
Effectiveness | Highly reliable and rapidly sporicidal [5] | Inconsistent; often serves as high-level disinfection [1] |
Penetration | Excellent; reaches fabrics, lumens, and biofilms [5][1] | Limited; struggles with organic barriers and narrow lumens [1] |
Monitoring | Uses rigorous biological indicators [5] | Lacks reliable verification methods [1] |
Storage | Items can be wrapped to maintain sterility [5] | Items cannot be wrapped; risk of contamination post-rinse [1] |
Material Impact | May damage heat-sensitive materials [5] | Can corrode materials like metal (e.g., hypochlorite/anolyte) [10] |
Beyond performance, the cost and infrastructure requirements further highlight the differences. While steam sterilisation is cost-effective for regular use [5], it requires significant infrastructure. This includes high-pressure chambers, specialised plumbing, and a dependable electricity supply to maintain temperatures between 121°C and 134°C [4][12]. These requirements align with the Cultivarian vision for accessible and ethical protein production. For smaller setups, portable table-top steam sterilisers offer a practical compromise and are often recommended for rural clinics, dental practices, and outpatient facilities [5]. Another option, dry-heat cabinets, provides easier installation and lower operating costs, though they require higher temperatures (150°C–170°C) and longer exposure times [1].
The CDC recommends steam sterilisation for all critical and semicritical items that can withstand heat and moisture. Liquid chemical sterilants, meanwhile, are better suited for heat-sensitive devices that cannot tolerate other sterilisation methods [5][1]. However, it’s important to note that liquid chemical sterilants do not achieve the same sterility assurance as thermal methods [1]. These distinctions are vital when determining the most suitable approach for resource-limited settings.
Suitability for Developing Nations
When it comes to sterilisation methods, developing nations face unique hurdles that call for practical, low-cost solutions. For instance, in sub-Saharan Africa, a staggering 66% of healthcare facilities don't have a reliable electricity supply[15]. This makes traditional autoclaves, which depend on consistent power, a poor fit. Even when autoclaves are available, their reliability is questionable. Surveys conducted in Madagascar, Benin, and the Republic of Congo revealed that only 20% to 75% of autoclaves were operational, compared to simpler dry heat sterilisers, which had functionality rates between 64% and 100%[14].
Electricity isn't the only challenge. Water quality and workforce training are also critical issues. Steam sterilisation requires distilled water to prevent scale build-up, but many low-resource settings lack the facilities to produce it. Using tap water damages both sterilisers and instruments[3][14]. On top of that, poor maintenance practices further reduce the effectiveness of sterilisation efforts. Training is another major gap. In Madagascar, none of the staff responsible for sterile processing had formal training, and in Benin and the Republic of Congo, only 12% had received any education in this area[14]. Without proper training, even functioning equipment can't guarantee safe sterilisation.
Fortunately, low-cost alternatives are making strides in addressing these challenges. In June 2015, Eniware, LLC and Noxilizer Inc. introduced a portable nitrogen dioxide (NO2) steriliser priced at around £400. This device can sterilise surgical instruments without needing electricity, operating at room temperature and using a £4 consumable cartridge per cycle[15]. A feasibility study showed that switching from disposable kits to reusable instruments sterilised with NO2 could slash the costs of Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision (VMMC) programmes from £68 to as little as £4.60 per procedure[15]. Similarly, in July 2020, Arizona State University's Luminosity Lab developed an ozone-based steriliser for just £48. This unit, designed for sterilising personal protective equipment, can run off a car battery, making it ideal for resource-limited settings[7].
The financial benefits of these low-cost methods extend beyond their initial price tags. Over a 20-year period, LPG-powered systems cost around £710 and produce only 1.3 tonnes of CO2 emissions. Compare this to charcoal-based systems, which cost approximately £1,125 and emit a hefty 10.2 tonnes of CO2[13]. These figures highlight the environmental and economic advantages of modern alternatives.
However, achieving proper sterility in these settings isn't just about the equipment - it also depends on rigorous pre-sterilisation cleaning. For example, the "three-sink method" can remove 99% of microorganisms before sterilisation even begins, making it a crucial step[14]. Facilities should also abandon outdated practices like soaking instruments in 0.5% chlorine solutions. Not only do these bleach solutions corrode expensive surgical tools, but they are no longer recommended by the WHO[3][14].
As PLOS ONE points out:
Healthcare facilities in low-resource settings require reliable, deployable, durable, affordable, easily operable sterilisation equipment that can operate independently of scarce resources[15].
Recommendations from The Cultivarian Society
Building on the distinctions between traditional and affordable methods, here are key recommendations for practical implementation.
Aligned with the mission of ethical and accessible protein production, The Cultivarian Society supports sterilisation techniques that promote the idea of real meat without slaughter - methods that are cost-effective, safe, and environmentally conscious. For countries looking to adopt cultivated meat production, the focus should be on affordable, safe, and easily accessible sterilisation options.
Steam sterilisation is the preferred method where infrastructure allows. According to the CDC:
nontoxic, inexpensive, rapidly microbicidal, sporicidal, and rapidly heats and penetrates fabrics [5].
In areas with limited resources, anolyte water (electrochemically activated saline) provides a practical alternative. This can be produced on-site by electrolysing saline, which eliminates the need to transport hazardous chemicals while maintaining effective antimicrobial properties [10][18].
When it comes to cultivated meat production, a phased sterility approach is recommended. Begin with pharmaceutical-grade cleanroom controls during early production stages, then transition to food-grade fermentation processes for large-scale production [16]. This strategy ensures safety while keeping costs manageable. As GFI Research Fellow Eileen McNamara explains:
Optimization of sterility practices that are fit for the purpose of cultivated meat can reduce the overall costs of production [16].
Additionally, take advantage of the natural antimicrobial properties found in raw materials, such as plant albumins, hydrolysates, and chitosan, to further protect against contamination [16]. Replacing pharmaceutical-grade media components with food-grade alternatives can significantly cut costs. For example, substituting L-Tyrosine shows a striking price difference: £1,140/kg for reagent-grade versus £104/kg for food-grade, leading to a 77% reduction in basal media costs [17].
FAQs
What are the benefits of low-cost sterilisation methods in developing countries?
Low-cost sterilisation methods offer a practical way to meet healthcare needs in developing countries without breaking the bank. By relying on locally available materials and straightforward equipment, these techniques can dramatically cut expenses compared to traditional methods, making them a lifeline for areas with limited resources.
What makes these methods stand out is their simplicity. They don’t need complex infrastructure like specialised gas supplies or high-pressure systems, which means they can be set up in small clinics, rural health centres, or even community workshops. This flexibility is especially useful for sterilising essential items like surgical tools and protective gear in places where power is unreliable or technical expertise is scarce.
Options like moist heat, bleach, or basic heat chambers are not just cost-effective - they’re also safe and efficient. Their straightforward nature means healthcare workers can be trained quickly, and because they don’t rely heavily on global supply chains, they remain dependable even during disruptions. These methods play a crucial role in maintaining infection control and supporting safe medical practices in low- and middle-income areas.
How does anolyte water compare to steam sterilisation in effectiveness?
Steam sterilisation, typically carried out with an autoclave, relies on saturated steam at 121°C for a set period to ensure sterility. This method is highly regarded in healthcare environments for its dependability and efficiency.
That said, there is currently no data available on the microbial-kill performance or validation of anolyte water (electrolysed saline) as a sterilisation technique. Without this information, it's impossible to directly evaluate how it measures up against steam sterilisation.
What obstacles do developing nations face when adopting traditional sterilisation methods?
Developing nations often grapple with hurdles when trying to adopt conventional sterilisation methods. These techniques often come with hefty price tags, relying on costly equipment and a steady supply of essentials like electricity and clean water - resources that aren't always accessible in some areas.
On top of that, operating traditional sterilisation systems demands regular maintenance and skilled personnel. Training staff and keeping up with maintenance can stretch already tight budgets and fragile infrastructure. This makes it all the more important to look into affordable alternatives that align with local needs, ensuring sterilisation practices remain both safe and practical.
Comments