The cleaning of endoscopic biopsy forceps is the most important phase of the disinfection method, since it consists on the removal of all organic material. However, the typical spiral shape and their extremity in cup make difficult the adequate decontamination and cleaning the forceps. Aims: 1) To verify the removal efficacy of the remaining material on the forceps through three different methods; 2) To verify the cost of each method. Methods: We randomized the study including 60 biopsy forceps used routinely for the urease test, at the Endoscopic Unit of the University of Sao Paulo. We followed the methodology: forceps removal and cleaning with gauze; immersion in 0.5%-enzymatic solution during 20 minutes; vigorous mechanical washing and rinsing with water. After that, the forceps were separated in three groups, such as: group a. 20 forceps - without any additional cleaning method; group b. 20 forceps - immersion in 3% hydrogen peroxide solution (20 minutes); group c. 20 forceps - ultrasound washing with enzymatic detergent. At the second phase, the forceps were submitted to observation by using magnifying lens (20 times), by just one observer, who did not know the cleaning method used, classifying them in: appropriate cleaning method: absence of organic material; inappropriate method: presence of organic material (secretion or blood/tissue). After that, all forceps were reprocessed again with enzymatic solution and sterilized under ethylene oxide. Results: We could identify two distinct types: 1. blood or tissue (adhered to the cup); 2. whitish secretion (from the body of the forceps). We could also observe that the forceps submitted to the washing with peroxidase presented a brighter and lighter color, comparing to the ones treated only with enzymatic detergent. Cleaning method was considered appropriate in 20% (4/20) in group a; 70% (14/20) in group b, and 55% (11/20) in group c. So, the peroxidase and the ultrasound washing have presented a superior efficacy when comparing to the enzymatic detergent only; p < 0.01 and p = 0.014, respectively. The cost of desinfection for group a was U$14.00, group b U$64.50 and group c U$46.20. Conclusions: 1. The peroxidase adds better efficacy of desinfection method; 2. In spite of presenting a superior cost when comparing to the ultrasound washing, it is a safe and efficient method, because it also has bactericidal, fungicidal, viruscidal and sporicidal qualities. The cleaning of endoscopic biopsy forceps is the most important phase of the disinfection method, since it consists on the removal of all organic material. However, the typical spiral shape and their extremity in cup make difficult the adequate decontamination and cleaning the forceps. Aims: 1) To verify the removal efficacy of the remaining material on the forceps through three different methods; 2) To verify the cost of each method. Methods: We randomized the study including 60 biopsy forceps used routinely for the urease test, at the Endoscopic Unit of the University of Sao Paulo. We followed the methodology: forceps removal and cleaning with gauze; immersion in 0.5%-enzymatic solution during 20 minutes; vigorous mechanical washing and rinsing with water. After that, the forceps were separated in three groups, such as: group a. 20 forceps - without any additional cleaning method; group b. 20 forceps - immersion in 3% hydrogen peroxide solution (20 minutes); group c. 20 forceps - ultrasound washing with enzymatic detergent. At the second phase, the forceps were submitted to observation by using magnifying lens (20 times), by just one observer, who did not know the cleaning method used, classifying them in: appropriate cleaning method: absence of organic material; inappropriate method: presence of organic material (secretion or blood/tissue). After that, all forceps were reprocessed again with enzymatic solution and sterilized under ethylene oxide. Results: We could identify two distinct types: 1. blood or tissue (adhered to the cup); 2. whitish secretion (from the body of the forceps). We could also observe that the forceps submitted to the washing with peroxidase presented a brighter and lighter color, comparing to the ones treated only with enzymatic detergent. Cleaning method was considered appropriate in 20% (4/20) in group a; 70% (14/20) in group b, and 55% (11/20) in group c. So, the peroxidase and the ultrasound washing have presented a superior efficacy when comparing to the enzymatic detergent only; p < 0.01 and p = 0.014, respectively. The cost of desinfection for group a was U$14.00, group b U$64.50 and group c U$46.20. Conclusions: 1. The peroxidase adds better efficacy of desinfection method; 2. In spite of presenting a superior cost when comparing to the ultrasound washing, it is a safe and efficient method, because it also has bactericidal, fungicidal, viruscidal and sporicidal qualities.