01Identify what the process is being asked to reduce

Begin by writing the claim as a change in a measured quantity: viable challenge organisms, recovered endotoxin activity or a cell-based response. Avoid a single column labelled “cleanliness” that combines all three.

Nomura and colleagues evaluated a mixed-gas system with separate microbial and endotoxin objectives. Their study reported a greater-than-six-log reduction of the bacterial challenge in one operating mode and a greater-than-three-log reduction of endotoxin-related LAL activity in another.Nomura and colleagues — Bactericidal effect and endotoxin inactivation (opens in a new tab)

The important comparison is that different challenges, modes and readouts supported the two results. The larger number cannot be transferred from the microbial result to the endotoxin result.

These are findings from a medical-device-oriented study. They are not recommended treatment conditions for research peptides and do not establish that any Novum material has undergone the evaluated process.

02A log reduction is relative to its own starting amount

For an original arithmetic example, a three-log decrease means dividing a starting measurement by 1,000. A starting value of 1,000 units would become 1 unit; a starting value of 1,000,000 units would become 1,000 units.

The same reduction therefore does not imply the same final amount. The example uses arbitrary units and sets no acceptance limit for a product.

Likewise, a reduction measured in viable-organism counts and one measured in endotoxin units describe different quantities. Their matching log values would not make their residual contamination equivalent.

03A treated surface may still carry an endotoxin-related signal

The same study detected substantial endotoxin-related activity on scissors after washing and conventional sterilisation treatments. It used a human-cell-based pyrogen assessment as well as its endotoxin experiments.Nomura and colleagues — Bactericidal effect and endotoxin inactivation (opens in a new tab)

That observation illustrates why a microbial treatment claim cannot close the separate endotoxin question. It does not establish the performance of those treatments for every surface or every challenge.

The researchers reported lower activity after their evaluated endotoxin-inactivation mode. This supports the particular experiment, not a universal guarantee of complete removal.Nomura and colleagues — Bactericidal effect and endotoxin inactivation (opens in a new tab)

Also preserve the distinction between physical removal and reduced measured activity. If an experiment measures a biological or analytical response, describe that response. Do not claim that every molecule has physically disappeared unless the evidence establishes that stronger statement.

04Build a process comparison with separate evidence rows

For each candidate process, record the challenge material, treated object, measurement method, starting level, final result and study conditions. Add a separate row where another contamination endpoint was evaluated.

An empty row means the corresponding claim remains unsupported by that experiment. It should not be filled using a result from another endpoint or an unrelated material.

A useful conclusion might say that the tested process achieved a defined microbial reduction while its endotoxin performance requires separate evidence. Another might report both outcomes, each with its own limits.

This format supports a fair comparison without turning a research result into a sterilisation instruction, an administration-safety claim or a blanket description of a supplier’s manufacturing process.